The Module System

The findings presented under the theme of unanticipated outcomes to purposive actions considered local contexts and the complexities of implementation associated to the acquisition and rollout of the Module System. Furthermore, the findings focused on where the complexity of implementation within specific locales was interpreted with respect to the canonical practices as set out as part of implementation. This section centres on the context of practices that were implemented with respect to the Module System as part of implementation. The acquisition and rollout of the Module System is an event and event wave which was interpreted as initiating a number of political activities within the process by various stakeholders at the institutional level. This section focuses on findings from

departmental level participants and the context of their engagement with canonical practices associated with the use of the Module System. Academic staff in the summer of 2009, were requested to write LOs for the 2010/11 academic year instead of the following one 2009/2010. Some schools and programmes, however, wrote descriptors on the basis of 2009/10 (ASSOCIATE05, 2009). A module approval functionality was a feature of the system. AFI Executive reportedly, committed to review and go through the system’s approval process in late summer of 2009. After the initial population of descriptors updating and changing module descriptors was tied in with the administrative Academic Structures process, which was normally completed at the Spring programme boards (which usually fell in late February and March). Accounts from departmental participants illustrate a confusion in relation to their interpretation of the specifics of implementation i.e. who was to approve what as the process for approving a module was shifted away from the programme board to FTLC. In essence FTLC was interpreted within accounts to have assumed an overarching role in the approval and review mechanism or module board although this was not clear to all members. A member of FTLC relays her own confusion in the following account:

I went to a new meeting so suddenly we’re reviewing other peoples modules, we were critically evaluating proposals for new modules, we were looking at the wording of learning outcomes, we were also doing things like looking at peoples applications for what’s the word……doing a specific module because they had already done something likewise and so on. And the role of the FTLC just seemed really unclear to me I have to say and the whole thing was learning as you went along what we were supposed to be doing but I really did feel like the rules of procedure were changing every single time we meet.

(FACULTY_TL02, 2010)

A further complexity relating to this change in practice relates to the situated context by which such processes occur and more particularly how peer-review is conducted within academia. Programme chair participants accounts question the basis of the

practice of review by FTLC, focusing particularly on the disciplinary basis of modules and the prior practice of review within disciplinary setting i.e. at programme or school levels. Even the formal process of accreditation within the institutions would be based on external and internal disciplinary expertise. In the absence of disciplinary knowledge the previous account by the member of FTLC interprets the focus of review on the language or “wording of learning outcomes”. Programme chairs constructed that FTLC would take such an approach in lieu of disciplinary expertise in the committee:

I don’t see the point in sending modules up to FTLC unless they’re coherent at some level. The question I have is the status or the academic knowledge of the person making that decision, do you know what I mean. I couldn’t assess your modules. I presume a lot of them are in Irish anyway for the programmes you run. I don’t have the expertise to do that because I don’t have the subject matter but then it’s really interesting because what they’re looking for it commonality of language. Is the language right in terms of learning outcomes…I’m not so sure it’s as simply as write all your learning outcomes in the following fashion with this type of language

(PTL05, 2010)

On foot of this practice an inherent policy paradox within the process emerged. The canonical practice endorsed that a committee outside of the programme board reviewed modules for programmes. This was interpreted to have been completed in the absence of specific knowledge as to the alignment between the modules outcomes and the programme or programmes upon which they were to be delivered. It can be argued from this standpoint that the policy objective of constructive alignment between modules and programme was potentially compromised. As the review of the committee took place independently of the programme board without the requisite disciplinary or programme experts in situ. Furthermore, it was interpreted that the focus of analysis within FTLC was mainly on the structural elements of a module as opposed to the disciplinary substance and wider programmatic issues in the absence of subject experts. Modules were reviewed at FTLC but without them necessarily being essentially considered in the

overall terms of the programme structure or alignment of same. This practice was altered during the revisions to the alignment processes were Programme Chairs were asked to complete an alignment for every module on their programme with the overarching programme outcomes.