ANALISIS DE LOS RESULTADOS DE LAS MATRICES DE EVALUACION

Data from participants identify the finding of a dynamic approach to policy design and implementation, where there were a number of stakeholders from a variety of backgrounds and with various agendas participating in the initial policy encoding process of AFI. The context and political activities associated with implementation constructed in institutional participants’ data describe and avert to a significant amount of negotiation and compromise between institutional participants with respect to the formulation of the AFI proposals, see Figure 4 and the ensuing AFI project plan Figure 5. Within the introduction of this chapter the contexts of change were explored including the university’s continuing attempts to advance a modularisation agenda within the institution and the development of the NFQ in Ireland.

Figure 4 – AFI Underlying Precepts

3.1 The DCU portfolio of programme and awards will be compliant with the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ).

3.2 Flexible learning pathways and programme access will be supported. In particular, annual progression will no longer be a universal requirement.

3.3 Registration for a module will last for one academic year only. Any resit opportunities must take place within this registration period.

3.4 New operations and procedures surrounding the allocation of marks and degree classification will be established:

(i) Module Boards will agree marks;

(ii) Award Boards will validate students’ results, monitor and record their progress, and agree award grades.

Source Adapted from: (DCU, 2007b:2)

The process of encoding the AFI proposals develops the non-linear process surrounding policy formulation and implementation and demonstrates incoherency within the policy process. Prior to the AFI proposals being approved in Academic Council in 2007, the university’s VPLI/R approached the ADTLs to work on modularisation in 2006. Based on the analysis of email communications and notes of

meetings held by ADTLs8 the data includes wide-ranging discussions on a range of

issues such as funding, progression, flexibility etc. The outcomes of these discussions culminated in draft proposals which included from the outset compliance with the NFQ and ultimately, the adoption of a learning outcomes approach. Notes of ADTLs meetings, however, account for a negotiated shift in thinking of the group. A discernible shift in the objectives of the proposal from compliance with Bologna as a means to implement modularisation, to compliance with Bologna as being a first step before anything else could be achieved can be traced. The concept of modularisation evolves within this data from an initial prominent position to one goal amongst many others (ADTL, 2006a , 2006b). The proposals were constructed further within participant interview data as a broad means to advance a number of issues that the university had committed itself to in its strategic plan. Implementing AFI is interpreted as adopting a so called “innovation bundle” with a wide range of objectives as opposed to adopting a fragmented approach to the implementation of these initiatives (ADTL, 2009). The wide-ranging objectives of the plan were set out as follows:

• placing DCU in the forefront of educational thinking • building upon existing strengths

• enabling interdisciplinarity • rectifying current anomalies

• fostering flexible approaches to programme development

• widening student choice - both in terms of curriculum and mode of study • supporting retention

(DCU, 2007b:1)

8

The label ADTL is used in this piece to include the ADTLs and one other member of institutional level staff to protect anonymity, therefore all participant data in this section is labelled ADTL

Figure 5 – AFI Project Plan Sep- 2007 Feb- 2008 Aug- 2008 Sep- 2008 Feb- 2009 Aug- 2009 Sep- 2009 Feb- 2010 Aug- 2010 Sep- 2010 Feb- 2011 Aug- 2011 Implementation of NFQ for Bologna

compliance

Information and training sessions on NFQ and Learning Outcomes

Preparation of new Marks and Standards, validation and accreditation templates, etc. Re-design of awards, modules and programmes

in line with NFQ Learning Outcomes model

Development of new Academic Framework

and piloting

Setting up of new structures and procedures for Module and Award Boards

Design, development and testing of integrated Registration/Timetabling/Student Record System (SRS)

Gaming/simulation of implementation of AFI

AFI piloting in Faculties (self-selected

programmes/awards)

Review of operation and subsequent revision of procedures, infrastructure, etc.

Implementation Phase

All new programmes under AFI

Full implementation of new structures in integrated

SRS (old and new programmes)

Full implementation of AFI

However, data from AFI participants include reference to the rounds of negotiation between institutional level participants, focusing on the type of modularisation to be supported i.e. academic or administrative9. The ADTLs within these accounts

describe liaising with a number of key internal institutional level stakeholders, whilst formulating their proposals relating to modularisation. The ADTLs accounts describe a process of negotiation between themselves, to establish what feedback would be fed into the proposals, whilst excluding other feedback, such as the inclusion of a specified amount of flexible/optional credits available on each programme, i.e. academic modularisation (ADTL, 2006c). One ADTL provided the following construction of the interactions between the ADTLs and another institutional participant, highlighting contrasting viewpoints on the notion of flexibility:

Which in X’s conception of it, her conception of it rather would have been very different from ours, X was very interested in the notion of a student being able to come in here choose essentially whatever they liked from the menu of modules and we were very against that. And very much in line with what the vast majority of our colleagues would have thought. so in a sense AFI sort of stepped back that possibility, but X wanted that and you know was still pushing for that and wanted a new marks and standards to deliver that. And so they were X objectives and so X, that's all X pushed for and from our point of view things like marks and standards couldn't be rewritten until a number of other fundamental decisions had been made.

(ADTL, 2009)

This account also references another project which morphed under the AFI banner i.e. the writing of a new set of university academic regulations, known locally as Marks and Standard. The context of experience, institutional and personal history provides further insight into how policy is not developed from a purely rational or linear basis and can therefore be described as incoherent. All of the members of the ADTL group10 had experienced the historical engagement with modularisation in the

institution, whereas “X’s” context identified in this quote in this section did not. X did

9

The concept of modularisation was replaced with the term flexibility as the project evolved the term flexibility is used within this study

10

hold extensive experience of working in institutions where academic modularisation was in place and had a research agenda consistent with such an approach. Accounts within ADTL notes of meetings indicate that the group did not perceive that the proposal for academic modularisation, would be “bought into” by academics on the ground if the university’s current provision of programmes was not catered for (ADTL, 2006c). Further along the implementation cycle the canonical practice of writing learning outcomes was associated with safeguarding against the so-called kitchen sink degree in within some AFI Executive member accounts:

…we wanted you know the flexibility which is built into the principles is hugely important however, it is clouded by a rationality that's imposed by award learning outcomes. And in a sense if you start with award learning outcomes it makes the notion of what we euphemistically refer to as the kitchen sink degree, it makes it impossible. So the very fact of adopting award learning outcomes in a sense meant that you could never have a kitchen sink degree. But you could of course put forward a general studies degree or whatever which would be very open…

(ADTL, 2009)

A top-down approach to implementing Learning Outcomes (LOs) was proposed by AFI Executive i.e. learning outcomes for awards would be written and then outcomes for module, finally modules and programmes would be aligned using an alignment matrix. This approach was in contrast with the bottom-up approach adopted within most other Irish universities. Official accounts of the rationale for this approach assert that the university engaged with this approach; because it aided coherency to start at the programme level; it allowed programme teams to identify duplication, redundancy or omissions of modules and that by engaging initially with Programme Chairs11 they could provide local level support to module co-

11 _{A programme chairperson in DCU terminology is an academic who is responsible for the day to day academic}

affairs of a programme. Each academic programme in DCU has an associated programme board (comprised of academic staff, student representatives and ex-officio members). Each programme nominates a programme standing committee to support the work of a programme chairperson in respect of decisions such as the transfer of students into or out of a programme.

ordinators12 (Hughes and Munro, 2012:29). Some AFI Executive participants

accounts rationalise that programme coherency was central to adopting this approach, as other institutions had struggled by starting with modules first. Furthermore, these accounts describe that by adopting this approach it would practically limit the notion of academic modularisation developing (AFIMGT05, 2009). Historical contexts were drawn into construction to justify the top-down approach. These included the context associated with DCU’s approach to modularisation phase I, which was devised primarily to maintain the academic coherency of programmes as opposed to introducing academic modularisation (DCU, 1994). Within the official AFI proposal this historical context is also referred to and a latent assurance to the maintenance of current practice is included within the text:

…learning in DCU has been characterised over the last 25 years by denominated programmes with whatever choice there is usually being strongly circumscribed. The aim of the Academic Framework for Innovation is not to impose full modularisation on all DCU Awards

(DCU, 2007b:9)

Adopting the top-down approach can be viewed as being consistent with protecting the status quo for managing programmes, which is indicative of adopting an approach to implementation which is oriented by current practices within the institution. Therefore, the canonical practices put in place in AFI in this instance it is argued, were consistent with the then current practice of programme management. This suggests support for an inherent policy paradox of implementing reform focused on the module being the primary unit but ensuring that the current practice of the programme being central being maintained. With respect to AFI policy though a glaring incoherency of adopting this approach comes to the fore, as maintaining an implementation structure which emphasised the primacy of the programme was

12

Each module in the institution is assigned an academic module coordinator who is a permanent/full-time member of academic staff, they need not deliver the actual module in the lecture theatre

potentially contradictory to one of the espoused policy objectives within the AFI proposals which proposed for the implementation of modular boards (DCU, 2007b). Internally, within accounts of ADTLs different experiences and backgrounds are described. Teaching experience within the institution provides context. Those with experience of teaching modules into a wide range of programmes emphasise the objective of adopting a module based system (ADTL, 2011).