Search

When students are involved in curriculum design they offer unique perspectives that improve\ud the quality and relevance of the curriculum. The processes involved in negotiating their\ud curriculum give school and university students possibilities to practice, experience and\ud develop the abilities to participate as citizens of a democratic society. Enabling students to\ud have a role in curriculum design requires that the curriculum is regarded as a process\ud instead of a predetermined, externally established product. Treating the curriculum as a\ud process supports teachers to co-create the curriculum together with students based on broad\ud principles or aims, but with greater freedom for students to negotiate the content and\ud methods of learning.\ud In the 1980s the concept of curriculum negotiation was developed by the Australian\ud curriculum specialist Garth Boomer and colleagues. We explore Boomer's ideas about\ud curriculum negotiation and how his approach can: 1) enable students to become meaningful\ud agents in curriculum design; 2) integrate student voice into the curriculum, and foster a more\ud democratic educational environment; and 3) develop specific citizenship skills and graduate\ud attributes.\ud We demonstrate the potential application of Boomer’s curriculum negotiation approach to\ud current school and university settings and make comparisons with other related democratic\ud citizenship education and curriculum approaches.

Many teachers recognise the desirability of involving students in the planning of lessons and units to\ud provide them with responsibility and autonomy. However, not many teachers give students a voice in\ud planning lessons/future learning because it is seen as hard and the barriers can be significant.\ud Moreover, there is a lack of clear practical strategies as to how to open up the curriculum to student\ud input. Yet there are many benefits to being open to student input, especially in Civics and Citizenship\ud education contexts, where student voice, the modelling of democratic processes and discourse, and\ud notions of empowerment are so central. Although our exemplification is drawn here from a Dutch\ud curriculum context, it also draws upon the analysis of the work of Australian scholars by Bron, Bovill\ud and Veugelers (in press). Therefore, we are confident that the ideas that we share here are equally\ud applicable in Australian education contexts and classrooms.

Aim To introduce and examine a pilot peer observation of teaching (POT) scheme within the Department of Paediatric Dentistry at Glasgow Dental School and its associated outreach centres. Methods All tutors teaching paediatric dentistry were invited to be involved in evaluation of the POT scheme. Participants were randomly paired with a peer, who then observed their teaching and provided constructive feedback. For those consenting to be involved in the evaluation of the scheme, semi-structured, one-to-one interviews were carried out by the principal investigator. Results POT was found by all participants to be a beneficial process, reassuring those of their teaching styles and giving them ideas to adapt their teaching. Conclusion POT is an effective method for engaging chair-side tutors in the reflection and development of their teaching practice via observations and scholarly discussion.

Previous studies have drawn attention to the challenges faced by researchers undertaking research into learning and teaching in higher education. These challenges are particularly highlighted at times of national measurement of research excellence. It is against the context of the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF), that this paper presents findings from a recent survey of research into higher education in Scottish Higher Education Institutions. Discussion focuses on the underground and undervalued nature of some of this research. Researchers are often based within disciplines and their research is not always well known within wider higher education research discourse. Many academics face pressure to prioritise publishing within their main discipline over publishing research into higher education. There is also a lack of capacity within some Scottish institutions to return research into higher education within the forthcoming REF exercise. The wider implications of these findings are then examined.

Within higher education, there is increasing interest in conceptualising students as producers, partners and co-creators of their own learning (Little, 2010; McCulloch, 2009; Neary 2010; Werder and Otis, 2010). One particular area of interest focuses upon students and academic staff co-creating curricula (Bovill et al, 2011; Delpish et al, 2010). The nature of co-created curricula can vary greatly and might include: students being consulted about changes to the content of course design; students designing part of a virtual learning environment; students designing marking criteria; or designing some of their own learning outcomes. The concept of co-created curricula is not new. However, discussion about co-creation of curricula has been most strongly evident in schools based literature, with many important discussions framed within ‘student voice’ and critical pedagogy discourse. In contrast, there has been less engagement in co-creation discussion and practice within higher education contexts until more recently.

The aim of this study was to gain an insight into a range of higher educational research taking place across Scotland with a particular focus on the nature, expertise, support and dissemination of this research. \ud For the purposes of this study, we used the term ‘research into higher education’ to refer to a range of higher educational research activity that included: research into higher education policies and practice, pedagogical research, research into learning and teaching taking place in higher education and research about transition from further education or school into higher education. \ud The findings point to the underground nature of pedagogic research taking place in Scotland. Many researchers are based within disciplines and their pedagogic research is disseminated in a variety of settings that do not always make it easily accessible within generic higher education research discourse. Pedagogic research is also apparently undervalued, with many academic staff experiencing pressure to prioritise publishing within their main discipline over and above pedagogic research. In addition there appears to be a lack of capacity within Scottish institutions to maximise the profile of higher educational research in the forthcoming UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) exercise.

This paper explores the desirability and possibility of active student participation (ASP) in curriculum design. Rationales for pursuing ASP in curriculum design are outlined. A conceptual model from community planning literature is then presented – Sherry Arnstein’s ‘Eight rungs on a ladder of participation’ – a model that has been used widely in various disciplines but rarely in higher education. Arnstein’s model is adapted to enable exploration of different possible levels of ASP in curriculum design in higher education. Key features of this adapted ‘Ladder of student participation in curriculum design’ model are outlined and illustrated through the use of examples. Discussion focuses on contextualising the desirability and possibility of different levels of student participation in curriculum design, and explores the utility of the adapted model. The paper concludes with some suggested areas of ASP in curriculum design that need further investigation.

This paper outlines some of the findings from a QAA (Scotland) funded project exploring first year curriculum design (Bovill et al. 2008). Whilst many examples exist of curricula being designed in ways to engage first year students, there are fewer published examples of active student participation in curriculum design processes. In the current higher education context where student engagement in learning is emphasised (Carini et al, 2006), this paper asks more generally whether students should be actively participating in curriculum design.\ud \ud In order to answer this question, several elements of the project findings are explored: student views gathered in focus groups; staff views collected in workshops; and the case studies where students were actively involved in curriculum design. The data are examined for lessons that inform the debate about whether students should be participating in curriculum design, in first year and at other levels. Alongside these findings, relevant literature is critiqued in order to ascertain the desirability and feasibility of adopting curriculum design approaches that offer opportunities for active student participation.

This report outlines the work and outcomes of a practice-focused development project 'Curriculum design for the first year'. The project was one of nine funded by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) under the First-Year Experience Enhancement Theme of the Scottish quality enhancement agenda. The stages of this curriculum design project included: completing a literature review;\ud running staff workshops to gather and disseminate information; holding student focus groups to gather students, views and experiences of the curriculum; collecting case studies of interest to the sector; and reporting findings to the sector. Key findings from the literature are presented in this report. They include the need to adopt student-centred active learning strategies (Harvey, Drew and Smith, 2006; Oliver-Hoyo and Allen, 2005; Barefoot, 2002) and the importance of providing early\ud formative feedback to students (Davidson and Young, 2005; Barefoot, 2002). Many suggestions for improving learning and teaching strategies have been adopted at module level, but could be implemented strategically across the breadth of a programme curriculum. Kift and Nelson (2005) supported this view and argued that it is equally important to support these principles with systemic university-wide change, including administrative and support programmes that are also integrated with the curriculum and student needs.

Higher education institutions are striving to enhance student engagement in learning (Carini et al, 2006). Increasing the degree of student ownership of the learning process and offering an authentic situated learning experience (Brown et al, 1989) are possible ways to enhance student engagement. In response to this, participants on a postgraduate programme in Professional Education at Queen Margaret University (QMU), Edinburgh, were invited to set up a writing group in partnership with a member of staff from the programme team. Participants on this course were either lecturers at QMU, lecturers at other higher education institutions or health professionals with an education remit. All participants were under differing degrees of pressure to publish written work related to their practice and only the member of staff from the programme team had published previously. Many of the participants were not confident in their ability to produce writing for publication (Dixon 2001). \ud \ud This paper outlines the experiences from this collaborative writing group in which members of the group wrote an article for publication about their perceptions of being involved in an action research project. An outline is given of the aims of the writing group, the writing approach adopted, the group processes involved and the outcomes from the group. This work offers insights into how partnership working between ‘students’ and ‘academics’ as part of a course, can enhance student engagement in learning and develop their confidence to write and publish.

This paper outlines the processes and outcomes from two innovative student-led projects to evaluate education research modules on a Masters level programme in Professional Education at Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh. Both projects were underpinned by the overall programme philosophy emphasising learner-centred approaches and strong research-teaching linkages. One project was an Action Research Evaluation project where students guided all stages of evaluating a module. The second project involved the students critiquing existing institutional module evaluation forms and then designing their own module evaluation form.\ud \ud Outcomes from the projects include increased student knowledge, skills and confidence in using education research methodologies and undertaking small-scale collaborative research projects. In addition, staff have gained a greater awareness of which aspects of the modules students consider should be evaluated. Students are still actively involved in the Action Research Evaluation project and are currently collaborating to write a journal article and present their findings at a seminar. The students are also directly informing the redesign of modules for the next academic year.

The world is increasingly characterised by profound income, health and social inequalities (Appadurai, 2000). In recent decades development initiatives aimed at reducing these inequalities have been situated in a context of increasing globalisation with a dominant neo-liberal economic orthodoxy. This paper argues that neo-liberal globalisation contains inherent contradictions regarding choice and uniformity. This is illustrated in this paper through an exploration of the impact of neo-liberal globalisation on population policies and programmes. The dominant neo-liberal economic ideology that has influenced development over the last few decades has often led to alternative global visions being overlooked. Many current population and development debates are characterised by polarised arguments with strongly opposing aims and views. This raises the challenge of finding alternatives situated in more middle ground that both identify and promote the socially positive elements of neo-liberalism and state intervention, but also to limit their worst excesses within the population field and more broadly. This paper concludes with a discussion outling the positive nature of middle ground and other possible alternatives.

Within international development, global agreement around the goals of poverty elimination and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) has led to renewed emphasis on ‘joined-up working’, partnership, and cross-sectoral\ud approaches. This emphasis has been motivated by concerns to ensure coherent policy and practice between the plurality of actors in an increasingly complex global arena. The realisation that previous sectoral approaches to development\ud have often failed to impact beneficially on poor people, has added to the calls for more cross-sectoral approaches that better reflect poor people’s crosssectoral lives.\ud This paper is based on research into cross-sector policy and practice at the UK Government Department for International Development (DFID), in the UK and Nepal. Definitions and concepts of cross-sector policy and practice are explored including a ‘cross-sector continuum’ model representing different levels of collaboration. Visual diagramming and other participatory methods were utilised as techniques for exploring and representing cross-sectoral processes and relationships. DFID have made some significant structural changes and have engaged in discussion to improve cross-sectorality. There are examples of varying levels of cross-sectoral engagement throughout the organisation, but these were strongest at country and project levels. Gender, sustainable livelihoods and HIV, along with individuals that have a particular commitment to collaborative approaches, can act as catalysts for institutional change in cross-sector policy and practice. Other factors that facilitate cross-sectoral approaches were also identified. However, the research found that collaborative rhetoric within DFID documentation is not matched by the same level of commitment to operationalising cross-sectoral approaches. DFID face some major barriers to\ud adopting cross-sectoral approaches including: a disjuncture between its role as a government bureaucracy and its role as a development organisation; a primary focus on product rather than processes; and the current pursuit of central level and sectoral approaches thought by some to be incompatible with cross-sectorality. The challenge is exacerbated by ‘disciplinarity’ and ‘territoriality’ within DFID, particularly involving the health sector. Although this study focused on DFID, the findings and some of the\ud participatory methods used in this research offer lessons about cross-sectoral and broader collaborative working to a much wider audience.