Leading a product model curriculum in private higher education colleges to meet the expectations of various stakeholders

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. (3^rd edn.) London: SAGE Publications.
Daines, J., Daines, C. and Graham, B. (2009) Adult Learning. Adult Teaching. (4^th 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. (3^rd ed.) London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Kelly, A. V. (2009) The Curriculum: Theory and Practice (6^th 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. (2^nd 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, (2^nd 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 (3^rd 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 21^st 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.