A Note on Agile Curriculum Prepared by the SEE IP Team Abstract
As part of its British Council Funded Intensive Programme (IP) to deliver social enterprise and cultural competence training to European undergraduate students, the Social Enterprise Europe (SEE) team undertook to study how effectively their own institutions responded to the challenges set by the tasks involved. This paper outlines the key findings.
The terms agile and responsive have long been used in systems literature to describe the ability of an organisation to adapt to unexpected events without compromising on cost or quality. Agile depicts a system that is designed to be flexible; particularly in adapting to changes in customer demands and opportunities not anticipated when the system was designed. In this it contrasts with the term “dedicated”, whereby a particular system was designed (or engineered in some parts of the literature) to achieve a particular specified end. Responsiveness refers to the degree in which processes can be changed or circumnavigated whenever a system is insufficiently agile to incorporate desirable responses.
The SEE IP team noted that different institutions in the partnership were able to adjust to opportunities at a different pace and held several seminars before, during and after the IP to share best practice. This working paper represents the current state of the term’s deliberations.
In general it is found that the more experienced members of the partnership have developed agile systems and, in some cases, find that resource constraints rather than agility limit the number of unplanned activities that can be undertaken. Less experienced Institutions do not have particularly agile systems, and resort to responsive behaviours in order to participate. In some cases the systems are not sufficiently responsive to allow participation.
Discussion
The IP team began using the term agile curriculum to encompass changes that would be necessary to incorporate the IP, and any other learning opportunity, into a curriculum. In this they were influenced by the notion of agile manufacturing, which refers to a design methodology that enables manufacturers to adjust to changes in demand that were unknown when the manufacturing system was installed without compromising cost or quality. In this it differs from dedicate systems designed to deliver a well specified product to a known quality standard at lowest cost. The IP team began their discussion assuming that a pedagogical equivalent definition existed and through several discussions began to think about how the IP would identify opportunities to learn about agility in context. As reviewed below, this does not appear to be the case.
curriculum. Consequently the IP team developed two working definitions to help them to learn about improving agility.
1 Agility in the curriculum refers to the design of an educational system to organise a pedagogical experience following an opportunity not anticipated when the curriculum was established
2 Responsive curriculum refers to the ability of a dedicated educational system to adjust to changes in curriculum or delivery or process that were not anticipated at the design stage.
Later reviews of the literature suggest that it is not common to think of an agile or responsive curriculum in this way, it is indeed possible that the term is not used consistently to depict anything generalisable about agility or responsivenessin education at all. Some writers use the term agile to refer to the introduction of changes to the content of what is taught in the face of rapid changes in content. In particular Flint (2012) describes dramatic increase in both variety and quantity of fraud, requiring changes to class activities and teaching to cover ongoing changes. However, she does not address issues with assessment and so on, and in fact urges the use of formative assessment to cover the changes he is required to make. This has merit in its own right, and obviates the need to redefine and revalidate assessments continually.
Such fast moving subjects as computer science have been wrestling with the issues for some time; as early as 2004, Chun was arguing for agility to be taught throughout the curriculum, that is to say that an agile curriculum is one in which all the courses are based upon principles of agility. (Chun,2004). Taking a similar approach to the same issue of fast moving subject matter, Vomm Brook (2011) addresses rapid and discontinuous developments in communications and cooperation using the virtual learning environment. That is to say the focus is upon creating agility in the communication skills developed by her University students; particularly through the VLE. Much in the paper is of interest, particularly her thoughts on multi-cultural communication, but outside the provision and deployment of the VLE she does not address wider institutional issues of concern here. Similarly, Monett (2013) reviews techniques for teaching agility in software engineering and applies them to equivalent teaching in project management. In this case the institution constraints are well described, but there is no suggestion that these should be adapted along agile lines.
Willike (2013) offers an agile method for establishing a new programme into a curriculum in such a way that it could be incrementally adjusted, but this has not been fully developed into an agile model and seems to relate turbulence to the validation process rather than opportunities education environment itself.
In short, the IP team were unable to find a straightforward model that accurately captured the processes that the course team aspired to describe and adopt. Consequently, the team produced Figure 1 below to identify the key components that should comprise such a model.
Key Components of an Agile Curriculum
1 Search: opportunities to extend the curriculum in unforeseen ways are actively sought 2 Appraisal: a promising opportunity is appraised for its suitability
3 Adoption: institutional process adapt in order to incorporate the unforeseen elements 4 Delivery: students receive the learning opportunities appraised and adopted
5 Accreditation: students are rewarded for their learning
Figure 1
These activities all draw upon the institution, teaching and students throughout the process.
Institution: Rules and resources – scheduling of staff, students and activities
Teachers: Skills and knowledge, flexibility in delivery, timetable and workload constraints
Students: Choices and options, career and study needs
Searching Appraisal Adoption Delivery Accreditation
This model of agile curriculum has been applied, in a series of seminars and Skype conversations, to each participating Institution. The next section of the paper presents the activities of each Institution as a case study.
Austria:
The Salzburg University of Applied Science has a long history of participation in EU projects, and was the lead partner in the Skill2e project that formed the nucleus of the partners here.
Searching
The University has a formal pedagogical strategy to engage in cultural competences and entrepreneurship throughout its curriculum as part of its employability agenda. Consequently the Salzburg University of Applied Sciences were willing to host the initial project meeting in January 2012.
simultaneously. Given other constraints, the Austrian team were not in a position to be the lead partner in the project.
Appraisal
Initial appraisal was carried out by International coordinators at the University. Generally, each opportunity is assessed according to its content alone. The IP emphasises cultural competence, multi-cultural teams and entrepreneurship, which resonate with the mission of the University and secured agreement. In addition, the focus on social enterprise added something that is not otherwise available to students at the University. In short, International Coordinators judged that it both enhanced and extended desirable provision to students.
Adoption
The role of the International Coordinator includes the task of negotiating with programme leaders to obtain permission to release students from their timetabled activities for the duration of the IP. Programme leaders approached were very supportive, and so once this permission is obtained from a programme leader, students on that programme are permitted to apply for a place on the IP. Many did so, and a further selection process was required. A successful applicant then negotiated with each Professor to ensure that the requirements of their main course are met. In this present case this involved deferral of examinations, assignment deadlines and attendance issues. Although not entirely without sticking points, all applications were able to negotiate satisfactory solutions to the issues resulting from attendance on the IP long before the programme began.
Naturally this process, although efficient in this case, is quite labour intensive for all concerned. With just five students the work was easily manageable but might be less so with larger numbers of students, and indeed, larger numbers of programmes, Delivery
Staff undertook a parallel process of negotiation to ensure that existing workloads were rescheduled around the January delivery period. One member of staff had other international commitments that could not be moved, and joined the IP as after the start date. Elements of the IP delivered by the Austrian staff were rescheduled to accommodate this.
Accreditation
The University has an existing process and was able to treat the IP as an elective rated at 5 credits. Like other such credits, they do not contribute directly to a student’s award, but will be recorded on the student’s transcript.
Overall, Salzburg University of Applied Science has processes and procedures in place to respond to opportunities in an agile way. This, in fact, also makes the systems commendably responsive in that staff did have sufficient flexibility in the
management of their workload.. That said, resource constraints currently inhibit the
United Kingdom:
Southampton Solent University (SSU) has experienced a small number of language based EU projects but has relatively limited experience in the management of such experiences. SSU volunteered to become the lead partner for this project because it has the greater experience in social entrepreneurship, but also because the University wishes to gain the experience of leading such international projects.
Searching
Southampton Solent University has an active policy of seeking “live briefs”, that is to say opportunities for students to engage with commercial and other external bodies to incorporate engagement with clients as part of assessed or non-assessed work. Many examples are built into the course structure, requiring the students to seek at opportunities. Others, at the behest of unit leader and course leader respond or instigate opportunities as appropriate.
At present there do not seem to be meta-opportunities – those engaging more than one part of the curriculum or cross faculty opportunities. The opportunity to participate in this IP did not come from searching as such, but was rather a consequence of engagement in a former EU project with many of the partners in this IP.
Appraisal
Since this IP did not fall crisply into the remit of any unit, course, course leader or programme manager, there was no obvious way to use the existing structures and processes to evaluate the opportunity. That said, the University has explicit policies and structures and successes in entrepreneurship and student business start-ups. What is more, it has a strong interest in social entrepreneurship both in its own right and as part of its social justice agenda. In short, although the IP fits comfortably with the University’s aspirations it did not fall within the remit of any appraisal process.
Adoption
problematic, and students declined the opportunity to participate, believing that the awards of themselves and their colleagues may be undermined by participation. Consequently, no students from SSU participated in the IP.
Delivery
As lead Institution, SSU naturally had the lion’s share of the work involved. In fact the University had no formal processes and structures to manage the IP but, being a Business School, was able to marshal an experienced project manager, accountant and research assistant to carry out operations. The earlier delivery date naturally caused stresses, but these were overcome through calling on additional resources from Faculty.
During the programme itself, key staff were withdrawn from other duties to participate fully in the programme.
Accreditation
Since no students from the UK attended the IP, it was not necessary to award any credits. That said, accreditation issues were an important part of the discussion at SSU and within the project until a late stage.
SSU gives credits through its system of examination boards for learning outcomes commensurate with the learning objectives for each board of studies. This created an initial difficulty since those students expressing an interest were from a variety of programmes distributed throughout the University and it was far from obvious that the learning outcomes of the IP fit the criteria for any programme of study, regardless of their intrinsic worth. What is more, students from the MBA could not be awarded ECTS credits from their home examination board since this can only award credits at Masters level. This would also have been a problem if overseas students had wished to have credits issued by SSU, but in fact this was not the case.
The University does have a diet of Professional Development Units (PDU) that could award credits, and has three units pertaining to social enterprise. However, these had fallen into disuse in recent years, and covered different areas to that covered in IP. What is more, the number of credits covered by these PDUs was not consistent with the 5 ECTS. Initially, this was not seen as a problem as there was time to validate a Social Enterprise Europe PDU had the original April date for the IP stood. However, the short preparation time following from the move to a January programme made this impossible. Consequently, it would have been difficult to accredit any SSU students on the programme.
Spain:
Seeking:
UCAM has an active policy of discovering new educational opportunities for its students. It does not have a formal process for identifying such opportunities; rather it is considered a normal expectation of staff. Consequently, a newly appointed member of staff bringing such an opportunity with her was not considered unusual or problematic in its own right.
Adoption
Departmental Heads evaluate opportunities against set criteria adopting a formal scoring system with an informal view of the value of the project compared with other possibilities and the overall benefits to the Department. In this case, the IP was approved in three key areas of competence; Personal (international communications), Instrumental (Language skills) and systemic (entrepreneurial spirit). More informally, the University liked the social enterprise theme since it could be regarded as a social enterprise in its own right.
The University identified that those students with strong English would gain most from the experience, and offered the limited number of places to language students in the educational faculty. Since response outstripped places, students were selected according to a written proposal for a social enterprise idea.
On acceptance, the University invoked normal processes for coordinating students, programme leaders, teachers and other bodies. Where necessary, students were temporarily withdrawn from work placements. Where examinations were missed, students were given an individual examination timetable consistent with their travel arrangements. Submission dates for assignments were rearranged. These activities were not regarded as irksome by those involved since they are normal consequences of agile educational activity.
Delivery
The short lead time between appointments of the new member of staff and the delivery of the IP had the potential to cause disruption – indeed it coincided with an intensive teaching period. UCAM simply reallocated the teaching of the original member and another member of staff, allowing greater participation than originally envisaged from University of Alicante. Again, this reallocation did not cause resentment since it is regarded as normal, and a wholesome indication of diverse pedagogy.
Accreditation
have taken this opportunity and on April 8th 2014 will present to the University on the topic of Social Enterprise in Europe.
Summary
UCAM were not required to demonstrate responsiveness since the agility of their systems was more than sufficient to cope with the demands generated by this IP. Indeed, the set curriculum at the University requires students to undertake this kind of activity.
Lithuania:
Kaunas College were not a member of the legacy body that met in Salzburg in January 2012, and thus did not participate in the early stages of planning. They were invited to join the project since members of the team had worked with the College before and knew that they were keen extend their international activities. In fact the original contact left the College soon after agreement, but a colleague was quickly assigned to honour the commitments and retain active membership of the team.
Seeking
Both the Lithuanian Government and the College actively encourage educational and cultural initiatives that focus attention towards the EU rather than previous international affiliations. The College is acutely aware that it has neither the experience nor contacts to take a leadership role as yet. Consequently the unexpected invitation to participate in this IP was seen as one of a small number of exciting opportunities to expose their students to wider experiences and immerse College staff in a larger pedagogical community.
Adoption
The multicultural elements of the programme were exactly what the College were looking for, and the enterprise elements something of a bonus. Moreover, the College also wanted staff to travel abroad and gain experience of other educational cultures throughout the EU. Consequently the Head of International Department makes it a point of principle to accept and facilitate all such opportunities.
The College also makes a point of offering a number of opportunities to students to travel and exhibit their work – so many that often formal communications become somewhat swamped. In this case the IP was announced during lectures on an innovation course, with strong skills in English being the only requirement. Places were awarded on a first come first serve basis, and demand was high.
Delivery
The arrangements for the IP were, coincidentally, straightforward for staff concerned. Skype enabled the few engagements that could not be delegated or rescheduled.
Accreditation
The College award 5 ECTS credits, which the student can use as part of their award by substituting them for some other part of the curriculum. Hence some students will record the credits as additional, while others will record them as intrinsic. The student has the choice in such matters.
Finland:
Arcada University were one of the original members of the Skill2e project and key instigators in the follow up meeting in Salzburg. It is a small University that has always sought to expand the opportunities for students outside of the local provision, and is very experienced in Erasmus type projects. It follows Government initiatives on extending the curriculum very closely.
Seeking
The University has a cycle of cross faculty initiatives to develop the curriculum, currently in areas of R&D and innovation, but also in language, international culture and entrepreneurship. For many members of staff and students, such activities are regarded as normal.
Adoption
In the usual run of things, staff wishing to engage in such activities as this IP would obtain permission through informal discussions with the appropriate Dean. In this case, the Dean was present in the Salzburg meeting and was therefore committed at the earliest stage. Indeed, the discussions on agile curriculum were initiated by the Dean.
The University were concerned that demand for places would be far greater than those available, and so announced the opportunity with a single email and web site entry. This attracted double the places available. Applicants were required to write a suitability piece to show why they would benefit from the IP, and poor performance eliminated some candidates. The remainder were assessed according to their grades – the IP rewarding those who were performing best. Assessments were rescheduled as necessary; again this is a common occurrence at the University. Delivery
obstacles and resistances where they arise. Unusually, matters did not proceed as usual in this case.
The chief difficulty arose with the two staff members in the IP team. The ambition of the University and its agility lead to multiple bidding for international projects, and the long period between submission and acceptance meant that the two academics had been committed to another project in Iceland during the original dates of the IP in April. This collision was not open to resolution. When the IP team met in Southampton in October a large number of alternative dates were considered – later dates were ruled out by the proximity of Easter and the end of the academic year for some partners. Consequently the IP was moved to January, with unforeseen consequences of UK students. Even this earlier time was not without issues for the Finnish team as it coincided with the start of the new term and new courses. This was resolved by sending each member for one week only. Events in the IP were rescheduled according to the specialism of the pair – intercultural competences in Week 1 and Agile Curriculum in Week 2. Unfortunately, a single week was not sufficient to complete the discussions on agile curriculum and further Skype meeting were arranged for later. The team were successful in obtaining an extension from the British Council for the submission of final reports to enable the discussions and the production of this discussion paper.
Accreditation
The University processes are accustomed to the award of ECTS credits earned through such opportunities as this IP. Students can use these credits to substitute for other parts of their award, and it is possible that students of international business may choose to do so. Other students will record the credits on their transcript.
Concluding Thoughts
Although there is little in the way of authoritative literature and definition of the subject of “agile curriculum”, the meaning of the team and its desirability emerged through several discussions between IP members. Agility seems to be related to experience and participation, and where such experience is limited the institution seeks to use responsiveness as a proxy for agile systems. This relationship is mapped approximately on the Figure below.
Agility
Responsive UCAM
SSU Kauas
Salzburg Acarda
Balances between Agility and Responsiveness by Degree of Experience
This is perhaps most noticeable in the case of SSU, whose systems (to continue with the manufacturing glossary) are dedicated – meaning that they are designed to meet specific ends efficiently but somewhat unwieldy in other contexts. In this it follows much of UK HE, and it may be that responsiveness is likely to be consistently more effective than reform. Kaunas College also use response techniques, but this is seen as a learning processes rather than a desirable end as such. At the other pole, UCAM have not demonstrated any need for responsiveness because its systems, and perhaps more importantly its culture, are more agile than the strains of this IP have tested.
Bibliography
Beatty,I, W.Gerace, W Leonard, and R Dufresne (2006) “Designing effective
questions for classroom response system teaching”, American Journal of Physics,
47, 1
Chun, A (2004) “The Agile Teaching / Learning Methodology and its e Learning Platform” Notes in Computer Science, 31, 43
Dangel, H and C Wang, (2008). “Student response systems in higher education:
Moving beyond linear teaching and surfacelearning. Journal of Educational
Technology Development and Exchange, 1(1)
Flint, M. (2012) “Formative Assessment to Support Agile Teaching and Active
Learning”, Journal of Excellence in Business Education, 1,1
Monett, D (2013) Agile” Project Based teaching and Learning” 11thInternational
Conference on Software Engineering Research and Practice, SERP, Las Vagas
Vomm Brooke, C, (2011), “ How to Leverage Virtual Learning Communities for Teaching Agile Communication Skills? The eGroups Case at the University of
Münster in Germany and Massey University in New Zealand” Knowledge
Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, Vol.3, No.4
Wilkie, M, Agile Curriculum Development,
http://www.mhwilleke.com/agile-curriculum-development accessed March 2014
