Introduction
In the last four decades, the
European context of higher education shifted the focus from personal
development and self-actualization to professional development (Biesta, 2006)
and building up the human capital for a global knowledge economy. In the UK,
the continuous necessity of skilled workforce and the widening participation
policy led to a phenomenon of massification of higher education, and the
diversification of student population (Trapp, 2012). In this context, the UK
higher education market expanded considerably through a growing number of
alternative providers. Primarily, the alternative providers of higher education
are private colleges offering undergraduate qualifications, who do not receive
public funds, and who are not further education colleges (HESA, no date). The governmental emphasis on professional
development led to the necessity of redesigning the undergraduate courses to
allow learners to acquire a well-defined set of skills for an earlier entry in
employment (Trapp, 2012). The increased accountability and competitiveness, the
subject benchmark statements imposed by the Quality Assurance Agency and the
National Qualifications Frameworks led the higher education providers,
including private colleges, to opt for a curriculum that creates the
opportunity to generate clear quantitative data.
In this context, working with
awarding bodies and delivering undergraduate courses based on a product model
curriculum generates unexpected challenges in terms of meeting the various
expectations of the stakeholders, particularly students, lecturers, and senior
leadership teams. Therefore, this essay will focus on how a middle leader in a
private HE college could use the literature and leadership theory to lead the
delivery of a product model curriculum, considering various expectations of the
stakeholders. The essay will review the literature in relation to product model
curriculum, and then explore the expectations of various stakeholders, in
relation to the curriculum delivered within undergraduate programmes. Further,
leadership literature will be explored to identify ways of improving teaching
and learning while delivering a product model curriculum. In the end, the essay
will conclude by suggesting ideas for improving the product model curriculum
leadership.
The product model curriculum
in private higher education colleges
The concept of curriculum is
difficult to define due to the different meanings given by the context it is
used. In time, trying to depict the complexity of the concept, the definition
of curriculum developed by incorporating various dimensions. The literature
reveals the curriculum as a continuous reorganisation of a child’s experience
of knowledge (Dewey, 1902) or the full range of learning experiences that
develop the abilities of the individual (Bobbitt, 1918). The institutional
context is added by Tyler (1957) who sees the curriculum as learning
experiences organised by educational settings to meet educational goals. Gagne
(1967) defines the curriculum as a sequence of content based on prior knowledge
that facilitates subject-specific learning. Similar definitions of the
curriculum as a plan outlining desired learning outcomes for a school or an
area of study are given by Popham and Baker (1970), and McBrien and Brandt
(1997). Other authors add to the curriculum definition the learners’ experience
(Nolet and McLaughlin, 2005; Kelly, 2009) and the applicability of knowledge
(Silva, 2009). Therefore, the curriculum could be described as planned guided
learning with various levels of generality, referring to the body of knowledge
and learning experience, embedding the desired learning outcomes, teaching
methods, activities and occurred learning. The focus of the curriculum can
change from learners’ development to the process of learning, content or intended
learning outcomes. The classical curriculum with roots in antiquity is based on
disciplines as grammar, logic, rhetoric, mathematics, philosophy and theology,
and is found in contemporary schooling as core subjects and teaching
approaches. The content model focuses on the transmission of knowledge and the
facilitation of overall understanding. With the process model of the
curriculum, the focus is shifting from the knowledge and the end product to the
process of learning and the development of thinking, acting and feeling. The product model of the curriculum is
focussed on desired learning outcomes and prescribes a precise content. This
model offers limited flexibility or choice to the teacher in terms of content,
while the students are passive receivers of knowledge. The product model
curriculum is widely adopted today as it provides the means for clear
accountability of teaching and learning.
As argued by Kelly (2009),
the product model curriculum was developed by applying to education the
scientific approach used in the industry. This curriculum approach was preceded
by Bobbitt’s views (1918) about structured educational content, with clear
objectives that both parents and students could understand. The idea of clear
objectives that define desired behaviours and learning outcomes is endorsed by
Tyler (1957), who outlines that the curriculum should determine the educational
purpose, the learning experiences, deliberate planning of learning and a way to
assess that the learning took place. Currently, the curriculum adopted by many private
higher education colleges, endorsed by awarding and validating bodies,
prescribes the indicative content, the desired learning outcomes, ways to
assess the learning outcomes, and expected capabilities and behaviours to be
developed by learners, thus, is a product curriculum. The curriculum content is
meant to help the students understand what is expected from them and indicates
what expectations the employers should have from graduates. The curriculum
leaders and lecturers use this information to structure and organise teaching
and learning. To achieve planned learning outcomes and behaviours stipulated by
the product model curriculum, Grundy (2002) argues that the learning
environment needs to be controlled, as well as learner behaviour. Therefore, in
the higher education context, the lecturers are responsible for classroom
behaviour management and resource management.
This approach of the
curriculum based on aims, objectives and rigorous planning depicts the learning
as a linear process similar to a factory production line. The learning as a
two-dimensional process in undergraduate programmes is demonstrated by the
rigid planning of content delivery and assessment, as found in the academic
calendar, the schemes of work and lesson planning, all based on clear desired
outcomes and assessment dates. The curriculum designers embed Bloom’s
taxonomy, emphasizing various levels of understanding through grade
characteristics and assessment criteria specific to the level of study, but
still, the product curriculum illustrates the learning as a linear process
(Kelly, 2009) failing to reflect its complexity and its developmental aspect.
The learning outcomes
curriculum approach is ideal for aligning the programme of study to external
standards, but it is criticised by some authors (Hussey and Smith, 2003; Maher,
2004). The main critics refer to the constriction of learning, and limitations
imposed by learning outcomes against creativity and emerging debates outside
the set topic. The image of education as an industrial process, with clear
final products and modification of human behaviours according to intended
outcomes (Kelly, 2009) is not agreed by everyone, especially in the field of
arts, philosophy and special needs education (Goddard, 1983). This model of the
curriculum is seen more like indoctrination and deprivation of freedom to have
their own opinion and think for themselves, transforming the students from
emancipated human beings, to passive recipients (Kelly, 2009). Moreover, Kelly
(2009) argues that there is no process of teaching and education without
individual autonomy, and Freire (1973:79) argues that without freedom,
education is transformed into ‘domestication’. Therefore, the curriculum should
allow a degree of personal and professional autonomy to lecturers and students.
In the case of undergraduate courses, the lecturers’ autonomy is limited, as
the curriculum is usually prescribed by the validating or awarding body. The
undergraduate course content prescribes not only what the lecturer should
deliver, but also teaching methods, what to be assessed, and how to be
assessed, depriving the lecturer of professional judgment on subject-specific
content. Hirst and Peters (1970) argue that curriculum content should be based
on worthwhile activities categorised into forms of knowledge. The meaning of
worthwhile activities depends on the subject of study and the type of degree:
academic or professional. In the case of academic courses, the curriculum
organises the content and desired outcomes based on knowledge, while the
curriculum of the professional courses focuses on building up expertise and its
applicability in the workplace (Squires, 1987). As the undergraduate
qualification aims to prepare the students for the workforce market, the course
content should reflect the demands of professional practice and employability
skills.
The undergraduate course
syllabus is structured into subject-specific modules. The module specification
includes a recommended timeframe for the student to achieve the desired knowledge
(number of guided learning hours, independent learning hours, assessment
preparation hours), the body of knowledge structured in indicative content,
learning outcomes (the knowledge and skills that the student should have at the
end of the module) and assessment criteria (what the student should be able to
do to demonstrate the learning outcome). The modularisation of the course
should offer flexibility to students through the choice of optional modules.
However, in private higher education colleges with an undergraduate provision,
this option is not available due to financial implications, and usually, the
institution makes the choice of optional modules when acquiring the course
designation from the awarding body. The downside of the modular course
structure is the difficulty faced by students to see the course content
holistically, to identify and understand the links between modules (Light, Cox
and Calkins, 2014). Moreover, the lack of a holistic approach in a course may
lead to over-assessment and academics working as isolated individuals. The
prescribed learning outcomes and the pressure of assessment are pushing the
students to superficial learning and a stressful ‘run’ for a grade, as recognised
by more authors (Sarros and Densten, 1989; McDowell and Mowl, 1995; Brown,
1997; Norton et al., 2006; Trapp, 2012).
Regardless of the criticisms,
the product curriculum model is widely used today because all the deliberate
planning, the specific learning outcomes, and assessment criteria are means to
hold the institutions accountable for money expenditure and to measure their
performance against external benchmarks.
Stakeholders’ expectations on
the curriculum in private higher education colleges
The beneficiaries of the
curriculum are the students, the employers, the lecturers, the senior
leadership team, the researchers, and various other institutions. Creating a
curriculum to answer the needs of all these groups is challenging and difficult
to achieve. For the purpose of this paper, close attention will be given to
students and lecturers.
The higher education students
have a good awareness of the value for money of the courses they are applying
for. As adult learners they expect the course curriculum to build upon existing
abilities and to help them achieve their personal and professional goals
(Rogers, 2008; Daines, Daines and Graham, 2009; Trapp, 2012). The learners’ expectations of the curriculum
prior to the course start fit with the characteristics of the product model
curriculum used at the undergraduate level (Daines, Daines and Graham, 2009;
Rogers, 2008). Before starting the course the learners want to know what, where
and how are they going to learn, how they will be assessed, how much that
qualification can help them on a professional level. As emphasized by Knowles
(1989) the adult learners are self-directed, and for them the learning
experience is important. Even if the higher education students are
intrinsically motivated and independent learners, it is argued (Jarvis, 2008)
that those with little experience in a subject prefer a more pedagogic approach
than andragogic. Based on the motivation to study, the students prefer to link
the learning with problems and performance, life-centred rather than
subject-centred (Knowles, 1989), and not to be overwhelmed by the amount of
coursework to be produced for assessment purposes in a relatively short time
(NUS and HSBC, 2009). Light, Cox and
Calkins (2014) argue that the course overload leads to students’ demotivation
and dissatisfaction. Even if the adult
learners subscribe to a course with standard content they expect flexibility of
content and assessment based on individual learning needs and abilities.
Moreover, studies show that the students will like to be more involved in
curriculum design through feedback (NUS and HSBC, 2009) and expect the learning
experience to be relevant, engaging and entertaining.
The lecturers’ understanding
of the curriculum links to the module and course content and structure,
students’ learning experience and the process of teaching and learning (Fraser
and Bosanquet, 2006). From the lecturers’ perspective, the product curriculum
used in undergraduate programmes is less engaging and appealing. As Harris (1982)
argues, the curriculum that does not offer freedom in terms of content and
assessment methods devaluates the lecturer as a subject specialist and
transforms the content delivery in a tick-box exercise. Moreover, the product
model curriculum, through predetermined content, is pushing the lecturers to
adopt a didactic and authoritarian approach which is contrary to the philosophy
of teaching adults (Jarvis, 2008). Furthermore, lecturers recognise that the
main challenge is the course overload and the little contact time. The course
overload in higher education is discussed by Light, Cox
and Calkins (2014) who state that this influences the method of delivery
(the lecture is preferred) and influences the depth of understanding and
knowledge for students (facilitates surface learning).
The above views and
expectations on the curriculum in higher education are congruent with
statements of scholars (Knight, 2001; Bron, Bovill and Veugelers, 2016; Bovill
and Woolmer, 2019) who argued that the curriculum should rather insist on
learning processes than outcomes, on relevance to students, and should create
opportunities for creativity and innovation. To conclude, we need to underline
the tension between students’ expectations of curriculum that should be relevant
and engaging, and lecturers' position versus curriculum as an instrument of
control and compliance.
Leading
the product model curriculum
In
the context of managerial trends underlined by the Jarratt Report (1985) and
the Croham Report (1985) as argued by Lomas (2012), the private higher
education colleges are subject to audits based on published criteria and
performance indicators, external and internal benchmarks. These aspects urge
the senior leadership team of private higher education colleges to shift the
organisational culture from a collegial approach toward a managerial and
corporate-like culture. Stressed by the market forces and the need to publish
high-performance results, the senior leadership team transfers this pressure to
middle leaders (head of department, programme leader), who are held responsible
for students’ satisfaction, retention and achievement rates in their
department. Thus, the middle leader in a private higher education college has a
conflictual and ambiguous role (Blandford, 2006), switching daily from the
lecturer position to line manager, with multiple lines of accountability. The
middle leaders found themselves between academic staff, students and senior
leadership team, in the position to lead and deliver a product curriculum
generator of quantitative outcomes, controlling and limiting from lecturers’
perspective, and not as relevant and engaging as expected by students.
The
middle leader has a dual role, needing to implement and respond to
institutional decisions and simultaneously responding to individuals and groups
within the department. The difficulty of
this position is enhanced by the middle leader’s multiple roles. In relation to
lecturers, the middle leader is a colleague (due to teaching responsibilities)
and in the same time is a line manager, having responsibilities like governing
the department, managing the academic activities and the staff, promoting and
representing the department, working with the students at group and individual
level, building up relationships with internal and external stakeholders,
managing the resources (Middlehurst, 1993). To be efficient, the middle leader
should have a clear vision about their department, about the context in which
they are working (Leask and Terrell, 1997), roles, responsibilities, and
expectations. It is very important for the middle leader to have a good
awareness of the college’s processes and regulations, for making efficient use
of them. The good institutional awareness can help the middle leader in
eliminating processual ambiguities and ease the communication and resource
manager role.
A
tension is created by institutional conditions in terms of working schedule and
environment and the variety of learning and working styles. The personal
characteristics and differences between lecturers and students should be given
close consideration. The middle leader role is to facilitate the productivity
and efficiency of staff, but this might be difficult to achieve when, as Lomas
(2012) states, freedom and autonomy are highly appreciated. Thus, in regard to the
lecturers’ needs, the middle leader should be knowledgeable about curriculum,
and instructional issues, to support the lecturers as required. Middlehurst (1993) argues
that the staff value the leaders who facilitate and recognize their efforts.
Moreover, many of the lecturer’s activities (self-study, lesson preparation,
marking) can be completed on campus or remotely, in the group or in solitude.
As a mediator between the lecturers and the senior leadership team the middle
leader in a higher education college might have the power to negotiate in
behalf of the academic team a flexible schedule and a quiet and comfortable
office space, which can facilitate continuous share practice and proper conditions
for preparation and self-study. It is argued by authors that the middle leader
is responsible for the creation of a proper environment to foster and promote
teaching excellence and learning culture (Ramsden et al., 2007; Viskovic, 2007;
Debowski, 2012).
The
relationships with the students might be challenging and ambiguous due to the
necessity of meeting individual learning needs while engaging with a product
model curriculum, with a rigid content and assessment. Firstly, the middle leader needs to work
collaboratively with the senior leadership team for acquiring appropriate
teaching and learning resources, that are appropriate for all the learning
styles and special learning needs. Then, the leader will work with the
lecturers, to create engaging and innovative learning opportunities. This might
be challenging because a product model curriculum does not offer much space for
innovation and creativity, and lecturers might fall into a resistance mood
(Debowski, 2012), not favourable for innovation and creativity.
As
the managerialism is perceived as anti-intellectual by the academic staff
(Lomas, 2012), the middle leader should adopt a more democratic leadership
style, to gain consensus and to provide the staff opportunities to engage in
curriculum leadership. The democratic attitude will empower the lecturer as a
subject specialist, providing opportunities to take ownership of the
curriculum. Moreover, the middle leader in higher education colleges is often
overloaded with teaching, managerial and administrative tasks, thus adopting a
distributive approach to decision making and sharing the responsibilities based
on each one’s strengths is not only for the benefit of lecturers but for their
own welfare. Lomas (2012) argues that the inclusive aspect of the distributive
leadership is more likely than any other approach to bring people on board, to
build up commitment and consensus. Mintzberg, Quinn and Ghoshal (1998)
recommend the distributive approach to be applied at individual, group and
institutional levels. Thus, for good results, the middle leader should empower
the lecturers and students both at the individual and at the group level.
Distributive leadership on department level in private higher education
colleges can be achieved by empowering lecturers as module leaders, based on
their specialism. Timperley (2013) argues that distributed leadership can
facilitate students’ achievements as the lecturers start to look closely into
their individual learning needs and are more motivated in improving the
learning and teaching experience. This approach could develop in time a
collegial culture on the department level, where the authority is based on
subject-specific expertise (Bush and Middlewood, 2005), and can create a high
performing team, fit with the expectations of senior leadership.
Leading,
supporting and motivating the staff to transform a product model curriculum in
an exciting teaching and learning experience can be achieved through
collaborative work. Fostering the dialogue between lecturers and students in
common meetings and carefully analysing the students’ module and course
feedback, is useful in shaping a curriculum that meets the needs of both groups
(Bovill and Woolmer, 2019). Moreover, as recognised by Bogotch, Schoorman and Reyes-Guerra
(2017), team meetings are important in leading teaching and improving the
practice. They can be the stage where the shared practice and brainstorming
activities lead to the development of creative and innovative teaching
activities. It is
stimulating for lecturers to share methods and activities efficient in engaging
students, to discuss ways in which a prescribed content can be transformed in
appealing and relevant topics for students. In curriculum-based discussions,
the lecturers can identify cross-curricular themes that help to reduce the
over-assessment through holistic assignment activities. The ownership feeling
created in this way leads to successful results (Middlewood and Burton, 2001;
Bush and Middlewood, 2005) and have a positive effect on motivating the
lecturers and taking them out from complacency, procrastination, and resistance
to change attitude.
The
reflection and peer-observations can positively contribute to improving the
practice in a product model curriculum. Both activities can be seen as tools of
continuous professional development (Trapp, 2012, Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation, 2013) and increased self-awareness. Used by both lecturers and
middle managers, the reflection and peer observation are improving the relationships
between them through self-knowledge and team knowledge (Blandford, 2006). Once
the strengths and weaknesses are identified through reflection and constructive
feedback, the middle manager can motivate the lecturer to commit to learning,
then plan and initiate learning opportunities. The evaluation of staff learning
should be completed through discussions and shared practice, in a cooperative
environment. The literature brings evidence that lecturers engaged in lifelong
learning and continuous professional development are a positive influence on
students, who can perceive their enthusiasm and are more open toward learning
and co-operation (Barth, 1990; Middlewood, 1999; Hughes, 2001; Bush and
Middlewood, 2013). The
lecturer and the middle manager in a learner role are inspiring students to
reflect and to understand themselves in relation to learning, to profession and
life.
The
harmony between the students’ expectations and lecturers’ feelings over the
product model curriculum leads undoubtedly to the improvement of teaching and
learning that will positively influence the achievement rates and overall
performance of the department, in accordance with the senior leadership
requirements and expectations.
Conclusions
Drawing from the above, to be
successful in leading the product curriculum, the middle leader should have a
deep understanding of curriculum models, leadership models, and stakeholders’
expectations. As advocated by more authors, the middle leader should have an
in-depth understanding of their own role, while creating a departmental vision
and managing people and resources effectively (Davies, 1989; Green and McDade, 1991; Middlehurst, 1993;
Preedy, 2002). Using a participative and collegial leadership approach and
bringing together the students’ experience and the lecturers’ specialism, the
middle manager and the academic team can transform the narrow and technicist
curriculum into a holistic and engaging learning experience for both staff and
students.
References:
Barth,
R. (1990) Improving Schools from Within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Biesta,
G. (2006) What’s the point of lifelong learning fi lifelong learning has no
point? On the democratic deficit of policies for lifelong learning. European
Educational Research Journal. 5 (3-4), pp. 169-180.
Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation (2013) Feedback for Better Teaching: Nine Principles for
Using Measures of Effective Teaching. Available at: http://k12education.gatesfoundation.org/download/?Num=2667&filename=MET_Feedback-for-Better-Teaching_Principles-Paper.pdf (Accessed:
10 November 2019).
Blandford,
S. (2006) Middle Leadership in Schools. Harmonising Leadership and Learning.
Harlow: Pearson.
Bobbitt,
F. (1918) The Curriculum. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Bogotch,
I., Schoorman, D. and Reyes-Guerra, D. (2017) Educational curriculum leadership
as currere and praxis, Leadership and Policies in Schools, 16 (2), pp.
303-327.
Bovill,
C. and Woolmer, C. (2019) How conceptualisation of curriculum in higher
education influence student-staff co-creation in and of the curriculum, Higher
Education, 78(3), pp. 407-422.
Bron, L., Bovill, C. and Veugelers, W. (2016) Students
experiencing and developing democratic citizenship through curriculum
negotiation: the relevance of Garth Boomer’s approach, Curriculum
Perspectives, 36(1), 15-27.
Brown,
G. (1997) Teaching psychology: a vade mecum, Psychology Teaching Review, 6(2),
pp.112-126.
Bush,
T. and Middlewood, D. (2013) Leading and Managing People in Education. (3rd
edn.) London: SAGE Publications.
Daines,
J., Daines, C. and Graham, B. (2009) Adult Learning. Adult Teaching. (4th
edn.) Cardiff: Welsh Academic Press.
Davies,
J. L. (1989) The training of academic heads of department in higher education
institutions: an international overview. Higher Education Management, 1(2),
pp. 201-215.
Debowski,
S. (2012) Leading Higher Education Teaching, Learning and Innovation, in
Groccia, J. E., Alsudairi, M. A. T. and Buskist, W. (eds.) Handbook of
College and University Teaching: A Global Perspective. Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publications.
Dewey,
J. (1902) The Child and the Curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Fraser,
S. and Bosanquet, A. (2006) The Curriculum? That’s just a unit outline, isn’t
it? Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 269-284.
Freire,
P. (1973) By learning they can teach, Convergence 6 (1). pp. 79
Gagne,
R. W. (1967) Curriculum research and the promotion of learning, in Tyler, R.
W., Gagne, R. M. and Scriven, M. (eds.), Perspectives of Curricular
Evaluation. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Goddard,
A. (1983) Processes in special education, in Blenkin, G. M. and Kelly, A. V.
(eds.) The Primary Curriculum in Action. London: Harper and Row.
Green,
M. F. and McDade, S. A. (1991) Investing in Higher Education: A Handbook of
Leadership Development. New York: American Council on Education.
Grundy,
S. (2002) Curriculum: Product or Praxis. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Harris,
K. (1982) Teachers and Classes: A Marxist Analysis. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
HESA
(no date) Definitions. Available at: www.hesa.ac.uk/support/definitions/ap-student#alternative-provider (Accessed: 27 December
2019).
Hirst,
P. and Peters, R.S. (1970) The Logic of Education. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Hughes,
M. (2001) Teachers as role models for learning, Professional Development
Today, 4(2), pp. 7-12.
Hussey,
T. and Smith, P. (2003) The uses of learning outcomes, Teaching in Higher
Education, 8, pp. 357-368.
Jarvis,
P. (2008) Adult Education and Lifelong Learning. Theory and Practice. (3rd ed.) London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Kelly,
A. V. (2009) The Curriculum: Theory and Practice (6th edn.),
London: SAGE Publications.
Knight,
P. (2001) Complexity and curriculum: a process approach to curriculum-making, Teaching
in Higher Education, 6(3), pp. 369-381.
Knowles,
M. S. (1989) The Making of an Adult Educator. San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.
Leask,
M. and Terrell, I. (1997) Development, Planning and School Improvement for
Middle Managers. London: Kogan Page.
Light,
G., Cox, R. and Calkins, S. (2014) Learning and Teaching in Higher
Education. The Reflective Professional. (2nd edn.) London: SAGE
Publications.
Lomas,
L. (2012) The impact of organisational culture on the leadership of higher education curriculum
development, in Groccia, J. E., Alsudairi, M. A. T. and
Buskist, W. (eds.) Handbook of College and University Teaching: A Global
Perspective. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Maher,
A. (2004) Learning outcomes in higher education: implications for curriculum
design and student learning, Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and
Tourism Education, 3, pp. 46-54.
McBrien,
J.L. and Brandt, R. (eds.) (1997) The Language of Learning: A Guide to
Educational Terms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
McDowell,
L. and Mowl, G. (1995) Innovative assessment: its impact on students, in Gibbs,
G. (ed.) Improving Student Learning. Through Assessment and Evaluation. Oxford:
The Oxford Centre for Staff Development.
Middlehurst,
R. (1993) Leading Academics. Buckingham: The Society for Research into
Higher Education and Open University Press.
Middlewood,
D. (1999) Some effects of multiple research projects on the host school staff,
in Middlewood, D., Coleman, M. and Lumby, J. (eds.) Practitioner Research in
Education: Making a Difference. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Middlewood,
D. and Burton, N. (eds.) (2001) Managing the Curriculum. London: Paul
Chapman Publishing.
Mintzberg,
H., Quinn, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998) The Strategy Process. Revised European
Edition. Hemel Hampstead: Prentice Hall.
Nolet, V. and McLaughlin, M.J. (2005) The nature of
curriculum, in Nolet, V. and McLaughlin, M.J., Accessing the General
Curriculum: Including Students with Disabilities in Standards-Based Reform, (2nd
edn.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Norton
et al. (2006) The pressures of assessment in undergraduate courses and their
effect on student behaviours, in Tight, M. (ed.), The RoutledgeFalmer Reader
in Higher Education. London: Routledge.
NUS
and HSBC, (2009) Students Research Experience Report: Teaching and Learning.
Available online at: https://www.nus.org.uk/PageFiles/12238/NUS-HSBC-report-Teaching-web.pdf (Accessed: 31 December 2019)
Popham,
W. J. and Baker, E.I. (1970) Systematic Instruction. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall.
Preedy,
M. (2002) Managing the curriculum for student learning, in Bush, T. and Bell,
L. (eds.) The Principles and Practice of Educational Management, London:
Paul Chapman Publishing.
Ramsden,
P. et al. (2007) University teachers’ experiences of academic leadership and
their approaches to teaching, Learning and Instruction, 17, pp. 140-155.
Rogers,
A. (2008) Teaching Adults (3rd edn.). Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
Sarros,
J.C. and Densten, I. L. (1989) Undergraduate students stress and coping strategies,
Higher Education Research and Development, 8(1), pp. 47-57.
Silva,
E. (2009) Measuring skills for 21st century learning. Phi Delta
Kappan. 90(9), pp. 630.
Squires,
G. (1987) The Curriculum Beyond School. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Timperley,
H. (2013) Distributing leadership to improve outcomes for students, in Wise,
C., Bradshaw, P. and Cartwright, M. (eds.) Leading Professional Practice in
Education. London: SAGE Publications and The Open University.
Trapp,
A. (2012) The context of learning: changes in UK higher education, in Groccia,
J. E, Alsudairi, M. A. T. and Buskist, W., Handbook of College and
University Teaching: A Global Perspective. Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publications.
Tyler,
R. W. (1957) The curriculum then and now. Proceedings of the 1956
Invitational Conference on Testing Problems. Princeton, NJ: Educational
Testing Service.
Viskovic,
A. (2007) Becoming a tertiary teacher: learning in communities of practice. Higher
Education Research and Development, 25(4), pp. 323-339.
