View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Team-Based Curriculum Design as an Agent of Change

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Team-Based Curriculum Design as an Agent of Change
Language: English
Authors: Burrell, Andrew R., Cavanagh, Michael, Young, Sherman, Carter, Helen
Source: Teaching in Higher Education. 2015 20(8):753-766.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2015
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Curriculum Design, Change Agents, Course Descriptions, Outcomes of Education, Case Studies, Teaching Methods, Course Content, Units of Study, Online Courses, Expertise, Higher Education, College Faculty, Educational Improvement, Teacher Education, Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Technological Literacy, Teamwork, Foreign Countries, Interviews
Geographic Terms: Australia
DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2015.1085856
ISSN: 1356-2517
Abstract: Curriculum design in higher education environments, namely the consideration of aims, learning outcomes, syllabus, pedagogy and assessment, can often be ad hoc and driven by informal cultural habits. Academics with disciplinary expertise may be resistant to (or ignorant of) pedagogical approaches beyond existing practice. In an environment where there is a need to develop online activities for students, one way to counter this friction is through a team-based approach underpinned by design-thinking. A design-thinking team brings together content, pedagogical and technical expertise to examine and resolve curriculum design issues. This paper explores a number of case studies in which such teams developed units of study and programmes for online delivery. The paper looks at the possibilities that the team approach can be a vehicle to instigate cultural change within and beyond the team; that is, from an individualist to a collective approach and ownership of the curriculum and its design, maintenance and continuous improvement.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 12
Entry Date: 2015
Accession Number: EJ1079688
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHzjo6DGkrMOb5npAj0OGUiAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBCgIi2_voaGs08hBAIBEICBm7LleQSvoN0s6FiK_9oSgnvb9ovenjj-K0HCNc8rLdKxLGAbHSiPX1cTsMilyiuYO1PUov9mD87y6hTu0InsjZFprzmBNY4jO2qNNDGeLmDUWnLtVUUC0ucI1uyesrxGgvwbrheEj0oQkWUIYpIGUSFqYH2tLuxf32OalUXJYeweiRyT40pvyNBitAoeajOk1fnJ-soGY7EE0Jmy
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0110573057;thd01nov.15;2019Mar19.13:24;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0110573057-1">Team-based curriculum design as an agent of change. </title> <p>Curriculum design in higher education environments, namely the consideration of aims, learning outcomes, syllabus, pedagogy and assessment, can often be ad hoc and driven by informal cultural habits. Academics with disciplinary expertise may be resistant to (or ignorant of) pedagogical approaches beyond existing practice. In an environment where there is a need to develop online activities for students, one way to counter this friction is through a team-based approach underpinned by design-thinking. A design-thinking team brings together content, pedagogical and technical expertise to examine and resolve curriculum design issues. This paper explores a number of case studies in which such teams developed units of study and programmes for online delivery. The paper looks at the possibilities that the team approach can be a vehicle to instigate cultural change within and beyond the team; that is, from an individualist to a collective approach and ownership of the curriculum and its design, maintenance and continuous improvement.</p> <p>Keywords: higher education; teacher education; online curriculum design; team-based design</p> <hd id="AN0110573057-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Many educational developers/learning designers have worked with numerous cross-functional online and blended Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) in curriculum design project teams in Higher Education. The rise of such project teams commenced in the mid-1990s as Internet-based education became more mainstream. These projects usually occur either with a faculty-specific educational designer/developer or one from the central learning/academic development unit. This paper articulates the benefits of such a process to the wider institution by using and adapting established theoretical constructs and models from the teacher education literature. Furthermore, the paper reports the processes that can occur within a team environment and discusses how they are connected to transformative learning in team members, both as individuals and as a group. Moreover, the paper suggests that when team members have a transformative experience, this affects other members of the department, faculty and in the wider academic community that can then assist in cultural change across a university.</p> <p>As students demonstrate their preference for active engagement in an online setting, the tutor or teacher 'presence' has become increasingly important, as the research points to a growing body of evidence regarding the importance of teaching presence for successful online learning (Garrison and Cleveland-Innes [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref1">5</reflink>]; Gorsky and Blau [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref2">6</reflink>]; Shea, Pickett, and Pelz [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref3">9</reflink>]). Furthermore, the research indicates that there is a 'consensus ... that teaching presence is a significant determinate of perceived learning, student satisfaction, and sense of community' (Gorsky and Blau [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref4">6</reflink>], 4).</p> <p>As the pedagogical possibilities of the new technologies become more apparent, institutions are keen to shift their primary mode of delivery away from solely face-to-face and into the online domain, often offering their units of study in blended modes which combine the use of technologies with activities in physical spaces. The scale of this type of change requires not only dedicated implementation resources, but also capacity building to ensure that new modes of delivery are both sustainable and continually improved. The institutional goal is to embed effective teaching and creative thinking into the curriculum design and delivery processes. The introduction of new technologies and their application to new or updated ways of learning and interacting can provide an opportunity to provoke professional learning experiences and an associated cultural change.</p> <p>This paper begins to explore the effectiveness of team-based approaches to curriculum design. It investigates whether working in teams and not in isolation is an effective approach to curriculum development. By drawing on the expertise of different team members, such an approach allows a design-thinking framework to inform a coherent vision while acknowledging the diversity of capability within academic communities. For the purposes of this study, a team-based approach is defined as more than two people with different expertise working together to produce a collective outcome.</p> <p>In this research, five project teams produced learning and teaching curriculum artefacts that formed part of the course material for an online programme (collection of units) or an individual unit. The case study projects were in distinct disciplines (philosophy, history and languages) and involved academic and professional staff with diverse experience. As well as using a team-based approach, there was commonality in each case study project: they were conceived as a means of shifting the modes of delivery to engage more with online technologies.</p> <hd id="AN0110573057-3">Literature review</hd> <p>There is little in the literature specifically around team-based curriculum design (TBCD) in higher education and its role in bringing about cultural change. TBCD happens when a group of staff work together as a team to develop or redevelop curriculum in a particular discipline within a department, faculty or school within a university. Much of the research focuses on team-based work by teachers in the school education space of K-12 (Kindergarten to High School Leavers), as this area has been associated with formalised curriculum design models for many years.</p> <p>Voogt et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref5">12</reflink>]) in their systematic review of the literature point to the successful application of teamwork on curriculum design and the professional learning opportunities afforded to the team. Whereas a traditional approach in higher education has encouraged collaborative work within mutually beneficial research projects, teaching has often been the sole responsibility of the academic who is the discipline expert. Moreover, professional development of teachers in higher education has only started to align with 'teacher education' maxims in the last decade or so (Mayer [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref6">7</reflink>]). In the late-1990s and early-2000s, Australian and British university's 'academic development centres' introduced diplomas and degrees in teaching for higher education teachers, specifically designed to upskill the academic workforce and raise teaching standards (e.g. UK Professional Standards Framework). Typically, university teachers have not been formally qualified in teaching unlike their colleagues in the teacher education disciplines.</p> <p>Using Clarke and Hollingsworth's ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref7">4</reflink>]) Interconnected Model of Professional Growth (IMPG), Voogt et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref8">12</reflink>]) examined collaborative curriculum design. This conceptual model was extended to TBCD in an effort to explore the efficacy of team-based work over individual work. The study looked at the positive and negative effects on staff development and ultimately the curriculum materials for online learning both at a unit level and at a programme level – and unpacked the effect on each team member's 'personal domain', 'domain of practise' and the 'domain of consequence' as outlined in the IMPG model (see Figure 1).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. The interconnected model of teacher professional growth (Clarke and Hollingsworth [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref9">4</reflink>], 951).</p> <p>The IMPG model looks at individuals and their interaction with their own personal domain (knowledge, beliefs and attitudes), domain of practise (professional experimentation), domain of consequence (salient outcomes in their individual growth or we believe in the students' growth) and the external domain (other team members and colleagues). The modification of this theoretical model to describe better what happens in a team curriculum development project is explored in the following paragraphs.</p> <p>Developing curriculum for online learning involves the appropriate use of technologies and online systems to facilitate the learning and teaching process. Often team members have vast amounts of experience within their disciplines but have limited understanding or experience with how best to facilitate learning in an online environment using the most appropriate and effective technologies. To help explain this, the paper draws on Schulman's notion of Pedagogical Content Knowledge or PCK (Shulman [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref10">10</reflink>]), and more specifically on the Technical Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) framework (Mishra and Koehler [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref11">8</reflink>]) to illustrate what each team member brings to the project as a whole.</p> <p>PCK is the knowledge that a teacher has about their discipline area and more importantly the knowledge and skill of how to teach and impart those concepts to others. TPCK goes one step further by suggesting that teachers have a 'unique body of knowledge that is constructed from the interaction of its individual contributing knowledge bases' (Angeli and Valanides [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref12">1</reflink>], 154). Angeli and Valanides extend this idea by highlighting an ICT strand; that is, the necessary skills and knowledge in the effective use of ICTs and how they apply to the teaching of concepts in their discipline area. They call this as ICT-TPCK, and it is this strand of TPCK that is used in the analysis for this paper. In other words, ICT experts such as instructional designers or other colleagues experienced in effectively using ICTs can provide the necessary bridge for other academic colleagues not familiar with teaching online.</p> <hd id="AN0110573057-4">Applying the theoretical frameworks</hd> <p>Each team consisted (at the very least) of academic content experts and educational developers – the theory being that each individual team member's PCK (Shulman [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref13">10</reflink>]) and TPCK (Mishra and Koehler [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref14">8</reflink>]) is shared with the team throughout the curriculum design project. Thus, curriculum materials are produced in part by the interactions of individual team member's PCK and TPCK.</p> <p>It was assumed that as part of the project:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> collective team-based work has the potential to be better than an individual's work;</item> <p></p> <item> staff involved in the team-based work will learn from each other during the project;</item> <p></p> <item> teacher professional development is analogous to academic teacher professional growth; and</item> <p></p> <item> entrenched cultural perspectives will be challenged as team members move from the individual perspective to the collective perspective.</item> </ulist> <p>The premise is that academic teaching staff can learn from each other in a collaborative and supportive team environment. Furthermore, team members can be influenced by exposure to the 'external domain' brought about from the team environment, the project brief and other external sources of information and stimulus.</p> <p>Clarke and Hollingsworth's IMPG model can also help to explain the process of learning where the external domain (in this case the team environment) interacts with the other domains through enactment and reflection by the individuals within these team environments. Figure 2 illustrates those interactions that facilitate professional growth in the team participants and therefore assist in changing the established culture. It is our belief that through interactions with other team members and with other colleagues, an individual's personal domain can change. That is, their knowledge, beliefs and attitude as they begin to practise (professional experimentation) the curriculum models that are designed for the programme by the team.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. The Change Environment (more than one individual).Source: Clarke and Hollingsworth ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref15">4</reflink>])</p> <p>A team member takes on board (enacts) a suggestion or approach from other team members (external domain) to solve a curriculum design problem (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref16">1</reflink>) which is combined with their knowledge beliefs or attitudes (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref17">2</reflink>) and in some cases salient outcomes (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref18">3</reflink>) so that it can then have an effect on the domain of practice. Conversely, upon reflection, these interactions can have an effect on both the personal domain (knowledge, beliefs and attitudes) and the domain of consequence (salient outcomes in their individual growth or I believe in the students' growth).</p> <hd id="AN0110573057-5">Methodology</hd> <p>The Faculty of Arts at Macquarie University ran several TBCD projects during 2013–2014, mostly under the leadership of the central Learning and Teaching Centre (LTC). Most were supported through the Faculty Partnership Program (FPP) (Carter and Huber [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>]; Carter et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref20">3</reflink>]) sponsored by the LTC. The teams consisted of academics and professional staff with either discipline content or technical pedagogical content expertise. The researchers became involved at the conclusion of the team-based projects. The lead author was external to the faculty and not part of any of the projects. The other co-authors edited and reviewed the draft evidence and subsequent papers. One person came from the discipline area of teacher education, one from educational design and one from senior learning and teaching management formerly from the media studies department. A general email sent to all members of the faculty called for volunteers to participate in the research. Participants for the present study were those staff who volunteered, were part of a team, and were available for interview. Table 1 describes the projects and team members who had a broad range of skills and backgrounds, including early and late career academics, educational developers, specialist media practitioners, project managers, and academic learning and teaching management staff. Interviewed team members are denoted by an asterisk in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1. Data gathering schema.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Programme or unit</td><td>Design task</td><td>Team members interviewed*</td><td>Collection instruments</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Bachelor of Archaeology – a newly created named degree</td><td>Create a fully online programme by converting traditional units or creating new units</td><td>ADE 1*, ADE 2/PM*, LTA 1*, ED 1/TS*, many academics from Ancient History</td><td>Individual interviews Focus group</td></tr><tr><td>Ancient History FPP – a funded project looking to provide virtual access to archaeological artefacts</td><td>Create 3D artefacts for virtual interaction online</td><td>ADE 1*, ED 1/TS*, LTA 1*, ED 2/TS, ED 3/PM, TS 1</td><td>Individual interviews LTC FPP report</td></tr><tr><td>Gamification in Philosophy FPP – part of a revamp of the departments approach to teaching philosophy</td><td>Exploring gamification models to help teach</td><td>ADE 3*, ED 1/TS*, TS 2, TS 3</td><td>Individual interviews LTC FPP report</td></tr><tr><td>Big History FPP – capitalising on the Bill Gates Foundation funded Big History Project</td><td>Create an intensive six-week online version of the unit</td><td>ADE 4*, ED 3/PM*, ADE 5</td><td>Individual interviews LTC FPP report</td></tr><tr><td>Introductory Chinese Language FPP – improving language teaching online by using real-time technologies</td><td>Develop online capacity for synchronous activities</td><td>ADE 6*, ED 4, AD 1, TS 4</td><td>Individual interviews LTC FPP report</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*Refers to those team members who were interviewed by the lead author. Note: ADE, Academic Discipline Expert; AD, Academic Developer; LTA, Learning and Teaching Academic; ED, Educational Developer/Learning Designer/Educational Designer; TS, Technical Specialist (ICT, video, gaming, social media, etc.); PM, Project Manager.</p> <p>Individual one-hour face-to-face interviews and in one case a focus group interview were conducted by the first author, a former educational/learning developer/designer. The first author was not part of the projects nor connected to the sponsors of the projects. The interviews were recorded with permission, transcribed, and returned to the participants for comment and/or correction. The resultant data were used to gain an insight into the process of each TBCD project by looking for common themes. Interview data collected from volunteer participants from four projects provided the basis of the case studies presented in this paper.</p> <p>Each person was asked the following nine standard questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What were your expectations going into the team project?</item> <p></p> <item> Describe your approach to the teamwork.</item> <p></p> <item> In what ways did the team approach change your thinking about the unit?</item> <p></p> <item> What were the most positive things to emerge from the team project?</item> <p></p> <item> What were the most negative things?</item> <p></p> <item> Do you feel that the team approach had a positive or negative impact on student outcomes/engagement? In what ways?</item> <p></p> <item> What would you change about the way the team approached the unit development?</item> <p></p> <item> Would you like to continue unit development using a team approach?</item> <p></p> <item> Do you see such approached working at a broader level (in programmes, across disciplines)?</item> </ulist> <p>The interview transcripts were analysed in NVIVO and the salient comments were coded into groups that fell naturally into the schema developed by the first author and lead researcher. Moreover, the descriptions arose by examining the frequency of key terms or phrases used across all of the data and summarising them under the resultant headings.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Different experiences and skill sets</item> <p></p> <item> Membership changes and commitment</item> <p></p> <item> Programme design in general</item> <p></p> <item> Project leader</item> <p></p> <item> Roles and responsibilities</item> <p></p> <item> Teamwork</item> <p></p> <item> Time management and coordination</item> <p></p> <item> Positive student outcomes</item> </ulist> <p>The coded aggregated data coalesced around three main sub-groupings or themes as shown in Table 2.</p> <p>Table 2. Data gathering schema.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Sub-groupings</td><td>Code group</td><td>Percentage coverage of total coded references</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>The benefits of teamwork</td><td>1, 3, 6</td><td>15 + 13 + 17 = 45%</td></tr><tr><td>The importance of project management and team-based design</td><td>4, 5</td><td>14 + 14 = 28%</td></tr><tr><td>The amount of time spent on task and participant's commitment level to the team and project</td><td>2, 7</td><td>11 + 11 = 22%</td></tr><tr><td /><td>8 (related to one question only)</td><td>5%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The key themes that emerged are used to report the findings of the study in the section that follows.</p> <hd id="AN0110573057-6">The benefits of teamwork</hd> <p>Teamwork by its nature exposes the members of the team to others who have different experiences and/or skillsets. This is particularly evident in teams greater than two where academic discipline and learning design experts work together with curriculum and technical design experts. Often, this TBCD phenomenon is not naturally occurring within or between academic departments unless an extrinsic source of motivation is supplied. Individual academics need to feel comfortable with their colleagues in a non-research team setting such as a TBCD team. As one participant explained, 'It doesn't have to be about solely who has the most knowledge of the content' and the individuals need to recognise 'that they are not a hermetically sealed unit' (Philosophy Academic Discipline Expert (ADE3)).[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref21">1</reflink>]</p> <p>Encouraging staff to share and work with others outside their research discipline can be beneficial. Participants supported this notion as shown by the following comments: 'They bring suggestions that I may not have considered before so I do find it a learning experience' (ED3/PM) and they 'give me a lot of suggestions to try and I think ideas are quite important' (Chinese Language Academic Expert (ADE6)) and 'it's a great way of sharing expertise' (Learning and Teaching Academic (LTA1)). Moreover, two participants explained, 'We draw on people's individual expertise which results in a kind of collective benefit and we learn from each other' (LTA1) and 'each lecturer has their own field of expertise ... and all together we can bring the best for one unit' (ADE1).</p> <p>The interaction between team members and the act of sharing their PCK and/or TPCK is facilitated in the team by having access to appropriate colleagues from other departments or specialist centres such as the LTC. Early career academics commented, 'LTC people had a lot more experience and expertise in learning outcomes ... and how to develop new ways of approaching tasks in iLearn (online/LMS[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref22">2</reflink>]) Modern History Academic Expert (ADE4)' and 'I would get some technical support from the LTC ... and suggestions ... (from) the academic group (regarding) pedagogical practice' (ADE6). One participant felt that you cannot expect an academic to have the necessary skills and knowledge to do everything and that other team members were needed to share the expertise 'to up-skill an academic to that level, well why would we do that? We don't need to do that, they're (other team members) really good at what they do' (Learning and Teaching Academic (LTA1)).</p> <p>All participants interviewed were unanimous in the view that it is better to work in a team than as an individual. One participant explained the benefits as 'when you are working in a team it takes longer ... but actually there are benefits to that because there's less trial and error process that you have as an individual whereas the team approach can actually do that very quickly' (Philosophy Academic Discipline Expert (ADE3)). As team members collaborate and learn from each other during the curriculum design exercise, one participant remarked 'it develops capacity within other teams that they work within, (like) the department' (LTA1).</p> <p>Moreover, the nature of the team's composition can determine the efficacy of the TBCD as a whole. The project members interviewed showed that teams which included members with a variety of knowledge, skills and experiences (such as academic discipline specialists, pedagogical specialists, learning design specialists and/or technical/media specialists) most benefit the overall curriculum design project. This is because team members bring 'their own field of expertise' (Archaeology Academic Expert (ADE1)), 'specialist skills' (LTA1), experience in 'pedagogical practice' (Chinese Language Academic Expert (ADE6)) and 'own set of skills and expertise' (ED). Participants felt that their team was 'very collaborative' (Modern History Academic Expert (ADE4)) and the 'team's approach to experimentation with different learning activities was a really positive thing' (ADE4). As one individual put it 'if I just do it on my own I don't think I can create such an engaging task' (ADE6).</p> <hd id="AN0110573057-7">The importance of project management and team-based design</hd> <p>TBCD that was 'well organised ... makes so much difference' (ADE4) and participants found that working on the 'learning outcomes ... I found it really useful to approach the unit as a team rather than individually' (ADE4) and 'we went from learning outcomes to assessment tasks and then down to activities' (ADE4). Moreover, those project teams working at the programme level found that it 'was a real revolution for the faculty ... (by creating) programme learning outcomes' (ADE1) and 'as soon as you do that you bring into play another team in a sense, because you have a department team and a programme team' (LTA1).</p> <p>Of course, the act of putting different people into a team does not ensure the success of the curriculum design project. Bachelor of Archaeology Programme team members reflected, 'We had a lot of resistance because you are dealing with people from different ages, from different backgrounds and it's very difficult to ask the same thing to all different people' (ADE1). Moreover, involvement and support by the Head of Department and each team member supported the idea that a combined top-down and bottom-up approach appears to be the best way forward to facilitate these types of collaborative projects. The results of this research show that there are a number of critical success factors to be aware of when forming teams in this area of activity. These are as follows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>There needs to be a strong leader who is able to motivate and lead the team to meet the objectives of the project. Note this applies to both the team and in some cases the wider sponsor such as a Head of Department. In other words, authority must be given to that 'leader' to make things happen</emph>. Many participants commented that issues arose when 'the leadership wasn't clear' (LTA1), one felt it was 'like herding kittens and no one was going in any clear direction' (Philosophy Academic Discipline Expert (ADE3)). The leader needs to 'take responsibility' (Learning and Teaching Academic (LTA1)) and 'be free to decide who will be involved in the team project' (ADE1). Moreover, the leader must have the endorsement and delegated authority of the relevant Heads of Department (HoD) 'I think that it should have been vested more formally from the HoD' (ADE2/PM).</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>All team members and external stakeholders should have</emph> '<emph>buy-in to the project</emph> to avoid issues happening' (Archaeology Academic Expert (ADE1)) and 'if you are clear about what everybody wants, what everybody is doing, what everybody thinks the parameters of the project are, what can be achieved' (Philosophy Academic Discipline Expert (ADE3)).</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Set clear expectations as part of the project preparation.</emph> One project lead realised it was too late to clarify 'what they expected from me and what I expected from them' (ADE3) once the project was underway.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Communication between team members and between teams is vital to the success of the project</emph>.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>At the very least, a simple project management approach should be adopted with a single project manager to manage each team-based project.</emph> Participants agreed that this was a key factor that contributed to successful developments. For example, comments included 'I think the whole thing would have benefited at the front end from a more considered project management approach' (LTA1) and 'it really needed a strong project management focus to keep everyone on task' (ED3/PM). Furthermore, 'We need at the front end a period of time ... where you can bring your team together you can say right here are the aims, roles and responsibilities, milestones' (LTA1).</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Roles and responsibilities need to be defined up front before the project commences.</emph> This was evidenced by the following comments from each project's participants: 'You need to sit down and assign roles early on and be serious about it' (ADE3), 'I think it is about making as much as possible as much as you can everything as clear as possible at the beginning because ... people are coming from different perspectives' (ADE3), 'The project manager was able to delegate tasks amongst the team really efficiently so everyone was doing something different, ... it was very organised' (ADE3) and 'I have the perfect ... project because everyone have (<emph>sic</emph>) their own role, someone to stay in front of the technical problem, someone have (<emph>sic</emph>) the academic pedagogical background, I have the language (discipline) background' (Chinese Language Academic Expert (ADE6)).</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Resources including timeframes need to be appropriate and understood by the team members.</emph> This is often related to setting expectations and managing expectations. Some project team members reported that the projects suffered due to 'lack of time and lack of resources' (ADE1) and that 'project management should have built in time for slippage' (LTA1). Furthermore, that resource allocation should have 'more flexible budget management' (LTA1) that can span more than one year.</item> </ulist> <p>While the above list is not exhaustive, it does contain the basic requirements to help to make a team project a success. Communication and strategies to ensure that every stakeholder is on board are essential to a successful outcome. Often members assume everyone else knows what is going on and is on board. However, this requires active involvement and the insistence on each stakeholder knowing their role and demonstrating commitment to avoid some of the common pitfalls common to project management theory.</p> <hd id="AN0110573057-8">The amount of time spent on tasks and the commitment level of members to the team and the pro...</hd> <p>Individual and collective commitment to the tasks at hand is essential to maintain the cohesion of the team-based project. Project team members commented 'part of the problem that there were lots of people moving around' (Philosophy Academic Discipline Expert (ADE3)) referring to changing membership of the team during the life of the project which affected project outcomes. Moreover, one participant reflected on the fact that they were 'lucky we had a lecturer who was capable of doing all that. His dedication was fabulous' (ED1/TS). Furthermore, 'when you have different people involved in a project and people don't want to follow your recommendations but want to go on their own way' (Archaeology Academic Expert (ADE1)) shows that all team members need to be collectively committed to the project and not just to themselves.</p> <hd id="AN0110573057-9">Teams as effective change agents</hd> <p>Evidence suggests that it is the interaction between team members and between different teams and other colleagues can form the basis for a transformative cultural change in attitude towards curriculum design within a department and consequently a faculty. It can happen through showcases, informal chats with colleagues and programme teams. One participant believed 'so it can happen, the transformation, in a positive and supportive environment' (ED1/TS) while another saw the team environment providing a vehicle 'to break away from that (a very traditional model)' (Modern History Academic Expert (ADE4)) and that the process 'was a really positive thing the fact that we approached the unit in a different way ... that doesn't follow the traditional model' (ADE4). Moreover, if the team stops working as a group of individuals where 'there's a kind of insularity about like I teach this unit and you teach that unit' (Philosophy Academic Discipline Expert (ADE3)) and 'we are all donating a unit to the programme' (ADE3) to working together where 'we are all contributing an ingredient' (ADE3) to the programme, the collective output will have a chance to transform and change the culture within a team, within a department, within a faculty and ultimately within an institution. One programme director interviewed firmly believed 'that this (team-based curriculum design) is the best way to develop a good programme' (ADE1).</p> <p>Evidence suggested that transformative professional growth can occur within team-based curriculum projects. For example, two participants who were relating the effort required to convince and cajole other team members and external departmental members into thinking about new ways of doing things: '[yes he was the worst one] Archaeology Academic Expert (ADE2/PM)] I didn't trust at all in online teaching so I changed my mind not completely (<emph>sic</emph>) I can see the positive aspect of online teaching' (ADE1). When such professional growth is evident, it can affect the teams around it for the better. As one participant put it:</p> <p>so once the cultural shift happens in one or two people it will slowly but surely happen in others and if the programme director is giving his troupes or colleagues who are joining him in that process some direct feedback to say 'it will be easy' then it makes it easier when it's from the top down ... we are moving a large number of people with very fixed ideas and that's actually the educational development nexus. (ED1/TS)</p> <p>Moreover one team participant claimed that:</p> <p>what we did was a real revolution for the faculty ... we created the programme learning outcomes and these learning outcomes were agreed then for the creation of the units and for each unit the learning outcomes now refer (back) to the programme learning outcomes. (ADE1)</p> <p>The results from this study reinforce the interconnected nature of teamwork as described in the IMPG (Clarke and Hollingsworth [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref23">4</reflink>]), and it better describes Voogt et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref24">12</reflink>]) research in extending the model to team-based work. The results also suggest how the IMPG might be applied to the team environment by a series of individual's IMPG domains linked through the 'external domains' interfacing each other in what we term as the 'team domain'. This is illustrated in Figure 3.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. The Team Change Environment (as this is a modification of the existing model moving from an individual perspective to a team perspective).Source: Clarke and Hollingsworth ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref25">4</reflink>]) plus Burrell (2015)</p> <p>The IMPG model can describe the interaction between individuals within the team domain who have PCK (Shulman [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref26">10</reflink>]) and those specialists of the team that have TPCK (Mishra and Koehler [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref27">8</reflink>]). However, the processes occurring within the TBCD projects and the resultant interactions between team members and the external domain are not centred solely on the individual but rather on a collective team of individuals. Therefore, we propose an improved model, the Interactive Model of Team-based Collaboration and Professional Growth (IMTCPG; see Figure 4), as a means of better describing the interactions among team members. It expands the IMPG to include external domains inside and outside a team and adds the descriptors of PCK and TPCK to help illustrate individual team member roles within the team. The IMTCPG model is thus a result of combining Clarke and Hollingsworth's model ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref28">4</reflink>]) and the subsequent research of Voogt et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref29">12</reflink>]) with specific team expertise using Shulman's ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref30">10</reflink>]) descriptors of PCK and Mishra and Koehler's ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref31">8</reflink>]) extended description of TPCK as part of the personal domains of some team members.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 4. The IMTCPG (Burrell 2015; Clarke and Hollingsworth [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref32">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>In this initial piece of research, there was no direct data collection from students to investigate their views about the quality of the resultant curriculum. However, where the curriculum had been taught, team participants did explain that positive outcomes were observed including 'what was positive was especially the unit ran smoothly ... student surveys emphasised the fact that it was easy to navigate the accessibility of the unit structure (online), ... and that was due to the team's approach' (Modern History Academic Expert (ADE4)). One team 'tried some more collaborative tasks between students ... that seemed to go well and the feedback was that it actually pushed them to do work' (Educational Developer/Learning Designer (ED3/PM)), while another team found the 'feedback was incredibly positive, students confirmed that the videos were effective ... that they watched them several times to repeat points'. As one participant explained 'we worked collaboratively with the LTC, I think that was a definite benefit ... another benefit was ... the quality of the online environment that we were able to create for students'. Another academic lead commented that in the 'post session survey (where) the students have (<emph>sic</emph>) their evaluation about the task design and technology capabilities and their experience ... that was pretty positive'.</p> <hd id="AN0110573057-10">Conclusion</hd> <p>As a result of this research, the next step will be to apply the lessons learnt so far at an institutional level to faculty teams in a systematic and coordinated way. The evidence suggests that with larger team sizes leadership authority is important. Furthermore, the composition and resourcing of teams can make a difference. It is within this context that personal and collective professional growth can occur; attitudes toward curriculum development can change; and the views of colleagues can influence others thereby contributing to the beginning of cultural change within an institution. To further illustrate the proposed approach, a TBCD overview (Figure 5) gives a high-level overview of the curriculum design process moving from individuals to teams. Moreover, as outlined in the introduction, each team will use the model in Figure 4 adapted from combining Clarke and Hollingsworth's ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref33">4</reflink>]) IMPG with Schulman's ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref34">10</reflink>]) and Mishra and Koehler's ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref35">8</reflink>]) work on PCK and TPCK to inform and describe the TBCD process.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 5. TBCD overview (Burrell 2015).</p> <p>The results of this research will be used to inform the regular quality improvement process of the FPPs in the LTC. In addition, further research will be conducted in 2016/2017 to test the efficacy of the above approach, the relative importance of the seven critical success factors and any others specific to a wider application of these factors to stimulating cultural and curriculum change. Moreover, the models presented will be refined so they can be of use to other researchers in the field.</p> <hd id="AN0110573057-11">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors</p> <hd id="AN0110573057-12">ORCID</hd> <p> <emph>Andrew R. Burrell</emph> <ulink href="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1094-2707">http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1094-2707</ulink> </p> <p> <emph>Michael Cavanagh</emph> <ulink href="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6537-4447">http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6537-4447</ulink> </p> <p> <emph>Sherman Young</emph> <ulink href="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8344-5253">http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8344-5253</ulink> </p> <p> <emph>Helen Carter</emph> <ulink href="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1211-7949">http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1211-7949</ulink> </p> <ref id="AN0110573057-13"> <title> Notes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref12" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> See key in Table 1 for explanation of source of quote.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref17" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Learning Management System.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0110573057-14"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Angeli, C., and N. Valanides. 2009. "Epistemological and Methodological Issues for the Conceptualization, Development, and Assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK)." Computers & Education 52: 154–168. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carter, H., and E. Huber. 2013. "Working in Partnership: An authentic professional learning program to promote sustainable curriculum change." Paper presented at Electric Dreams, 30th annual ascilite conference, Sydney, Australia, December 1–4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref18" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Carter, H., E. Huber, F. Nicolson, and L. Arthur. 2014. "Macquarie University 'Smart' Partnership Program." Paper presented at the Smart Learning Best Practice Forum, Dubai, October 20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref7" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Clarke, D., and H. Hollingsworth. 2002. "Elaborating on a Model of Teacher Professional Growth." Teaching and Teacher Education 18: 947–967. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00053-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref1" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Garrison, D. R., and M. Cleveland-Innes. 2005. "Facilitating Cognitive Presence in Online Learning: Interaction Is Not Enough." American Journal of Distance Education 19 (3): 133–148. doi: 10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref2" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Gorsky, P., and I. Blau. 2009. "Online Teaching Effectiveness: A Tale of Two Instructors." International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 10 (3): 1–27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref6" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Mayer, D. 2006. "The Changing Face of the Australian Teaching Profession: New Generations and New Ways of Working and Learning." Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 34 (1): 57–71. doi: 10.1080/13598660500480142</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref11" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Mishra, P., and M. J. Koehler. 2006. "Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge." Teachers College Record 108 (6): 1017–1054. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref3" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Shea, P. J., A. M. Pickett, and W. E. Pelz. 2004. "Enhancing Student Satisfaction through Faculty Development: The Importance of Teaching Presence." In Elements of Quality Online Education: Into the Mainstream, edited by J. Bourne and J. C. Moore, 5, 39–59. Needham, MA: Sloan-C.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shulman, L. S. 1987. "Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform." Harvard Educational Review 57: 1–23. doi: 10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UK Professional Standards Framework. 2011. https://<ulink href="http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/professional-recognition/uk-professional-standards-framework-ukpsf">www.heacademy.ac.uk/professional-recognition/uk-professional-standards-framework-ukpsf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Voogt, J., H. Westbroek, A. Handelzalts, A. Walraven, S. McKenney, J. Pieters, and B. de Vries. 2011. "Teacher Learning in Collaborative Curriculum Design." Teaching and Teacher Education 27: 1235–1244. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2011.07.003</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Andrew R. Burrell; Michael Cavanagh; Sherman Young and Helen Carter</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref10"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1079688
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Team-Based Curriculum Design as an Agent of Change
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burrell%2C+Andrew+R%2E%22">Burrell, Andrew R.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cavanagh%2C+Michael%22">Cavanagh, Michael</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Young%2C+Sherman%22">Young, Sherman</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Carter%2C+Helen%22">Carter, Helen</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Teaching+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Teaching in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2015 20(8):753-766.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Curriculum+Design%22">Curriculum Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Change+Agents%22">Change Agents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Course+Descriptions%22">Course Descriptions</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Outcomes+of+Education%22">Outcomes of Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Case+Studies%22">Case Studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Course+Content%22">Course Content</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Units+of+Study%22">Units of Study</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Online+Courses%22">Online Courses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Expertise%22">Expertise</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Improvement%22">Educational Improvement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Education%22">Teacher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pedagogical+Content+Knowledge%22">Pedagogical Content Knowledge</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technological+Literacy%22">Technological Literacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teamwork%22">Teamwork</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interviews%22">Interviews</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/13562517.2015.1085856
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1356-2517
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Curriculum design in higher education environments, namely the consideration of aims, learning outcomes, syllabus, pedagogy and assessment, can often be ad hoc and driven by informal cultural habits. Academics with disciplinary expertise may be resistant to (or ignorant of) pedagogical approaches beyond existing practice. In an environment where there is a need to develop online activities for students, one way to counter this friction is through a team-based approach underpinned by design-thinking. A design-thinking team brings together content, pedagogical and technical expertise to examine and resolve curriculum design issues. This paper explores a number of case studies in which such teams developed units of study and programmes for online delivery. The paper looks at the possibilities that the team approach can be a vehicle to instigate cultural change within and beyond the team; that is, from an individualist to a collective approach and ownership of the curriculum and its design, maintenance and continuous improvement.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 12
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1079688
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1079688
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/13562517.2015.1085856
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 753
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Curriculum Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Change Agents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Course Descriptions
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Outcomes of Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Case Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Course Content
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Units of Study
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Online Courses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Expertise
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Improvement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pedagogical Content Knowledge
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technological Literacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teamwork
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interviews
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Team-Based Curriculum Design as an Agent of Change
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burrell, Andrew R.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cavanagh, Michael
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Young, Sherman
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Carter, Helen
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2015
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1356-2517
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 20
            – Type: issue
              Value: 8
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Teaching in Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1