ESRC
ECONOMIC
& SOCIAL
RESEARCH
COUNCIL

LEARNING SOCIETY
PROGRAMME

PRINCIPAL RESEARCHERS

Professor Harold Silver
Dr Andrew Hannan
Ms Susan English

University of Plymouth

CONTACT
ADDRESS

Faculty of Arts & Education
University of Plymouth
Douglas Avenue
Exmouth
Devon  EX8 2AT
Tel:	  01395 255368
Fax:  01395 264196
Email:  a.hannan@plymouth.ac.uk

Duration
24 months

INNOVATIONS IN TEACHING AND LEARNING IN HIGHER
EDUCATION: INTERIM REPORT

OBJECTIVES

The project aims to examine the innovative responses of higher education to: the challenges of increased student numbers and diversity; the promotion of lifelong learning and a learning society; and satisfying the requirements of employment and citizenship.

The first phase focused on innovators and innovations and included processes such as problem based learning, open learning, independent learning, distance learning and computer based or supported learning.  The second phase is concerned with institutional contexts for innovation.

APPROACH

The first phase focused on the experiences of innovators, based on 221 interviews at 15 universities which were a balance of old and new across the UK.

The second phase has revisited three English and one Scottish university from the original 15 and added the Open University, to undertake case studies of the process of change.  One hundred and sixteen interviews and six focus group meetings have taken place.

MAIN FINDINGS

FIRST PHASE

	Perceptions of the nature and value of an innovation varied widely.
	There was widespread emphasis on the importance of support from senior colleagues, which was not always forthcoming
	Some colleagues saw innovators as eccentric or even dangerous, depending on the kind of innovation, (eg Computer Aided Learning or Work Based Learning), and how threatening it was to conventional teaching.
	There was often greater interest and take-up in institutions other than those where the innovation was introduced.
	Staff often criticised centralised policy and decision making.  Some innovations, however, were generated by institutional policy (notably on Information Technology and generalisable skills). Institutions were commonly producing policy documents on teaching and learning, but staff were suspicious of their seriousness.
	There were mixed, but mainly supportive, views of the involvement of services established within institutions to support innovation in teaching and learning.
	Strong emphasis was placed on the importance of seed corn funding and widespread approval was expressed of the impact of the Enterprise in Higher Education programme as a catalyst.
	Views about the value of Teaching Quality Assessment were mixed, but there were many expressions of approval of its ‘shaking up’ effect.
	Use of lnformation Technology in innovations was extensive, aimed at replacing or supporting conventional teaching.
	The use of distance learning was accelerating most strongly at postgraduate level, and for both on-campus and off-campus students.
	Research and teaching were often competing for attention, time and resources.
	Recent moves to raise the profile of teaching for promotion and other forms of recognition, including prizes, were widely discussed, but there was much staff cynicism or ‘wait and see’ attitudes.

SECOND PHASE

[By July 1999, the second phase had not been completed and analysis was still being carried out.]

	Innovations in teaching and learning were taking place within a context of sometimes quite radical change in institutional structures.
	Middle managers (heads of departments) were crucial in implementing institutional policies on teaching and learning.
•	The extent and nature of institutional commitment to teaching and learning cannot be categorised on the basis of ‘post-1992’ and ‘pre-1992’ universities.
	At institutional, faculty or departmental levels, major obstacles to the general development of teaching and learning strategies could arise.  They included: a strong emphasis on research and the Research Assessment Exercise; staff attitudes based on tradition and unquestioned assumptions; and student resistance to change, as a result of pre-entry expectations and pressures, for example, from part-time employment which placed limits on the time available for learning.
	Institutional cultures are immensely difficult to analyse, given that they are the result of often widely different attitudes and approaches by different levels of staff and by students; competing interpretations of policy; and competing commitments (to the institution and to the discipline; to research, to teaching and to administration; to short-term needs and those of promotion and career). The result is often a complex picture of tensions and consensus.
	It was possible, however, to detect a ‘culture of teaching and learning’ or a ‘culture of research’, or a mixture of the two.  It was not possible to detect a ‘culture of innovation’, since the intentions and outcomes of institutional policy and individual initiatives depend on substantially different factors.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

	Institutions of higher education, in reviewing their structures and support systems, need also to have in mind the longer-term implications for employment, participation in lifelong learning and contribution to the learning society of the policies and practices they promote.
	Successful innovation in teaching and learning is possible where a balance with research is maintained.  There was evidence of a strong commitment to research alongside an equal commitment to improving teaching and ensuring effective student learning.
	Targeted national funding could usefully experiment with different ways of supporting the enhancement of teaching and learning, eg through sponsoring sabbaticals for staff developing new approaches or supporting the equivalent of Readerships and Chairs for those who successfully introduce innovations.
	The pursuit of excellence in teaching and learning could benefit from greater attention to the role of innovation, a study of which could usefully be incorporated within the training of all staff.  All partners in higher education need to have a broad understanding of the origins and purposes of ‘innovation’ of different kinds and at different levels - individual, team, institutional, national, disciplinary, and technological.

KEY PUBLICATIONS

Silver, H (1999) “Managing to innovate in higher education”, British Journal of Educational Studies, 47, 2, 145-156
Hannan, A, English, S & Silver, H (1999) “Why Innovate? Some preliminary findings from a research project on Innovations in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education’, Studies in Higher Education, 24, 3
Hannan, A & Silver, H (2000) Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Open University Press (forthcoming)

Our web site (at http://www.fae.plym.ac.uk/itlhe.html) contains a report on the first phase, two working papers, two bibliographies and four conference papers.