Embedding Inclusion within the Academic
Environment: Lessons from the SIF II funded Trinity
Inclusive Curriculum Project Pilot.
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
Background and Objectives of the TIC project ................................................. 2
TIC Pilot of the Teaching and Learning Self-Evaluation Tool. .......................... 3
Pilot Methodology ......................................................................................... 3
Pilot Stages .................................................................................................. 4
Stage one: Teaching Observation ............................................................ 4
Stage two: Resource Review .................................................................... 4
Stage three: Stakeholder Feedback ......................................................... 5
Stage four: Tool Completion ..................................................................... 7
Stage five: Creation and presentation of an action report ......................... 8
Outcomes and Lessons Learnt ...................................................................... 10
Lesson 1: Importance of visible buy in ....................................................... 10
Lesson 2: Design the tool to be quick, easy, and informative ..................... 11
Lesson 3: Ensure the process is collaborative in nature ............................ 12
Lesson 4: Highlight the progress to date .................................................... 13
Future Work on the TIC project ...................................................................... 13
Appendix – Example of Key Suggestions template........................................ 15
Works Cited ................................................................................................... 16
Introduction
In October 2008 the Strategic Innovation Funded (SIF II) Trinity Inclusive
Curriculum (TIC) project was established in Trinity College Dublin (TCD) with
the aim of embedding inclusive practices within the teaching, learning and
assessment environment of TCD. This was a response to the increase in
students entering TCD from non-traditional routes. The TIC project recognises
that while non-traditional access routes have enhanced the opportunity of
non-traditional students to enter TCD, it has not addressed inequalities in the
teaching and learning environment. TIC addresses this issue, aiming to
1
enhance the accessibility of the teaching and learning environment, thereby
levelling the playing field for students from a variety of backgrounds.
This paper looks at the work done by Trinity Inclusive Curriculum project in
phase II, which ran between October 2008 and June 2010. It reports on the
progress made in embedding inclusive practices within the teaching and
learning environment in TCD, and shares the lessons learnt along the way.
Background and Objectives of the TIC project
In 2008 Trinity College Dublin (TCD) obtained funding from the HEA to
embark up a three-year project aimed at embedding inclusive practices within
the mainstream curriculum of College. The Trinity Inclusive Curriculum (TIC)
project was thus created with the following objectives:
-
identifying actual and potential barriers to teaching, learning and
assessment.
-
identifying enabling strategies for overcoming these barriers.
-
introducing these enabling strategies into the mainstream curriculum
via
o
the creation of teaching and learning self-evaluation tools to be
embedded into College policies and procedures,
o training and awareness activities,
o creation of resources: www.tcd.ie/capsl/tic
-
collaborating, and disseminating information externally to other higher
level institutions.
Following a period of research; in which the current teaching and learning
environment in TCD was examined, and the TIC project officer engaged in
consultation with key stakeholders (e.g. students, academic staff and access
staff); a draft teaching and learning self-evaluation tool was created.
TIC has been engaged in a pilot of this self-evaluation tool over the academic
year 2009-10, and will take this opportunity to report on this pilot.
2
TIC Pilot of the Teaching and Learning Self-Evaluation
Tool.
The TIC pilot incorporates two phases, phase 2.1 and phase 2.2. Phase 2.1.
ran from October to December 2009, with action reports produced in January
2010, and involved five programmes representing all three faculties in TCD,
and included both level eight and level nine programmes. Phase 2.2 ran
through semester two with action reports produced over early summer and
involved five programmes and two individual modules.
The aims of this pilot are to:
•
Develop a user-friendly self evaluation system that can blend into
design, review and quality enhancement systems ,
•
Ensure that recommendations arising from the tool are realistic and
attainable considering resources available through consultation with
staff and students.
The pilot therefore sought to assess the content and format of this selfevaluation tool, the process through which it is used, and the feasibility of
suggested actions within the resulting action report along with the process
through which they are enacted.
Pilot Methodology
Pilots included the following stages:
1. observation of teaching and learning by the project officer,
2. resource review,
3. staff and student feedback,
4. tool completion and feedback, and
5. creation and presentation of an action report.
Stages one to four, the data gathering stages, ran concurrently. The final
stage followed the data gathering.
3
Each stage will now be described in detail, including lessons learnt along the
way.
Pilot Stages
Stage one: Teaching Observation
A sample of classes and events were observed for each participating
programme / module. On average, three or four lectures were observed per
programme. Where students engaged in a variety of teaching methods, (e.g.
lectures, labs, seminars) the TIC project officer endeavoured to attend these.
A selection of other events, including orientation events and committee
meetings were also attended where possible.
The project officer engaged in teaching observation with the aim of:

Getting a sense of the physical environments that students within the
programme/ module learn in from the perspective of students so as to
discover any difficulties faced (e.g. lighting, acoustics, temperature,
available IT equipment).

Getting a sense of the variety of teaching and learning methods used
across College so as to better match up suggested future actions to
promote inclusion with real world practice, and

To observe good practices that can enhance the advice offered to
programmes / module moving into the future.
Stage two: Resource Review
A selection of resources were reviewed for each programme and module
involved within the pilot. Resources included programme handbooks, reading
lists, handouts, WebCT and programme webpages.
The project officer engaged in resource review with the aim of:

Gauging the level of compliance with the Revised College Accessible
Information Policy: http://www.tcd.ie/about/policies/accessible-infopolicy.php
4

Getting a sense of the information conveyed to students through
different media in College, and

To observe good practices that can enhance the advice offered to
programmes / modules moving into the future.
Stage three: Stakeholder Feedback
Feedback was sought throughout the pilot from both staff and students within
the pilot programmes and modules.
The project officer engaged in stakeholder feedback with the aim of:

Ensuring that the questions asked within the self-evaluation tool were
relevant and grounded in the real experiences and concerns of
stakeholders,

Ensuring that the suggestions arising within the action report were
feasible and relevant considering the academic environment and
resources available,

To request instances of good practices that can enhance the advice
offered to programmes moving into the future.
As the structure, size and organisation of each programme / module varies
greatly, there was no universal method of feedback collection. The project
officer adapted the feedback process to suit the needs of each individual
programme or module.
Staff Feedback:
The primary source of staff feedback came from personnel in senior academic
positions within the programmes involved, as these were generally the
primary liaisons within the pilot programmes (e.g. Programme (or module) Coordinators, Heads of Schools, and Directors of Teaching and Learning). These
were the individuals who completed the draft tool and so they fed back
regarding its format and content. It was through these staff members that the
majority of feedback regarding the usability and relevance of the tool was
received.
5
Feedback was also sought informally from other teaching staff following
lecture observations. Lecturing staff were offered the chance to offer feedback
on any issues that they felt were significant to their teaching within the
programme. Staff commonly took this opportunity to comment on issues that
arose within the physical environment that affected their teaching (e.g.
acoustics within the class room, the classroom layout etc).
Finally, all staff members were given the opportunity to feedback on the action
report arising from the pilot when it was presented at the programme
committee. At this committee meeting, the TIC project officer presented the
tool and action report, and explained the purpose behind the pilot. Feedback
on both form and content was then welcomed from all staff.
Student Feedback:
As each programme / module varied in both size and structure, there was no
one universally acceptable method of student feedback. Instead the project
officer used a variety of methods in response to each programme’s individual
needs.
Qualitative feedback:
For each programme / module involved in the pilot the project officer
conducted a semi-structured interview with some or all of the student
representatives. Student representatives were contacted in advance, and
asked to gather feedback from their classmates regarding their experiences of
the teaching and learning environment.
One programme involved in the pilot used peer mentoring as a source of
student orientation and support, and so the project officer arranged to meet
with peer mentors as well as representatives on this programme.
6
Finally, one programme, involving only eleven students, was too small to
administer a successful survey. The project officer chose to meet a sample of
students from this programme instead.
Survey data:
The TIC project officer aimed to conduct a student survey with each
programme / module involved in the pilot. Student surveys sought student
perspectives on teaching, learning and assessment methods along with
facilities within the College, and the physical environment.
Surveys were either conducted online using SurveyMonkey or in person
during class. Conducting surveys in class could guarantee a higher response
rate and so was the preferred method. However, while it was possible to
reach all students within modules, and some of the post-graduate
programmes in class this was not the case for undergraduate programmes as
they involved multiple year groups.
Where it was impossible to reach all target students within the one class an
online survey took place. With online surveys, a response rate of between 2030% was achieved.
There were a small number of programmes where no survey took place as
part of the pilot because these programmes had arranged their own
programme surveys during the academic year and we were anxious to avoid
survey fatigue amongst students, as this would lead to disengagement and
unreliable survey data. For these programmes, the information collated by the
programmes themselves was analysed instead.
Stage four: Tool Completion
The draft self-evaluation tool was sent to the primary liaison within each
programme / module involved in the pilot. This person was asked to either
complete the tool himself or herself, or to it send it on to the relevant
personnel within their areas.
7
While the liaison was given the option of dividing the sections of the selfevaluation tool between staff members, the majority chose to complete the
entire tool themselves. Exceptions to this were cases where the primary
liaison was an administrative member of staff. Administrators always chose to
pass the tool onto a more senior academic member of staff. In addition, the
completion of the placement section, was almost always completed by the
relevant programme placement personnel.
The tool was completed in a variety of modes. Some chose to complete it
alone and then to contact the project officer, others chose to complete it in the
presence of the project officer at a pre-arranged meeting. Of those who
completed it alone, some chose to complete the electronic version and some
chose to complete a printed version. Those who completed the tool in printed
format reported the greatest difficulty, as this method cut off access to
accompanying notes and explanations.
Once the tool was completed the project officer arranged to meet with the
liaison to obtain feedback on the process. Feedback was sought on:
-
Ease of completion,
-
Usefulness of accompanying guidance notes,
-
Areas of ambiguity where more guidance is needed.
Stage five: Creation and presentation of an action report
Once the data was gathered (stages one to four), an action report was
created for each pilot programme / module. The first task was to create a
consistent template that could be adapted for each pilot volunteer. Once the
template was finalised, reports were written for each volunteer.
Format of Action Report:
The action report began with an introduction that set the context and rationale
for the pilot and subsequent suggested actions. The main body of the report
contained, in tabular format, the questions raised in the pilot, the response
8
given by the programme and data collected by the project officer, and the
suggested future actions. A table of key actions was then collated. This table
had two blank columns for the programme to complete with the time frame for
actions and the person responsible.
It is important to highlight areas of current good practice as well as areas for
improvement, and as such an appendix was included that highlighted
examples of good practice either observed during the pilot or reported by staff
and students within the programme. The aim of this section was to encourage
and motivate staff by showing that much work had already been completed on
the path towards inclusion. This also provided an opportunity to highlight the
good practices of individual lecturers so that their colleagues could apply
these to their own teaching practices.
Once the first draft of the action report was completed a meeting was held
between the primary pilot liaison and the project officer to discuss the report.
This meeting allowed for a discussion regarding any recommendations that
could be perceived as problematic or ambiguous before wider circulation. It
also allowed for the highlighting of any misunderstandings, and the rewording
of sections if necessary. Following this meeting the project officer finalised the
report and forwarded to the programme / module liaison.
For programme the action reports were then circulated and presented at the
next programme committee meeting. This step did not occur for module pilots
as there was no corresponding committee.
Following the programme committee meeting (or the final meeting with the
project officer for modules), the two blank columns in the table of key
suggested actions at the back of the report were completed by the programme
/ module (see Appendix). These columns requested a timeline for each action
and agreed a person responsible. It has been agreed that once these key
actions are underway, the project officer and pilot liaison will meet again to
discuss the process of implementation (e.g. what was viable and what was
9
not. Where difficulties lay and any advice that could be passed onto future
programmes / module engaging within the tool).
Outcomes and Lessons Learnt
Lesson 1: Importance of visible buy in
The visible buy in of senior members of the academic staff was extremely
important to the smooth running of the pilot. Without visible buy in from these
individuals the whole process could be significantly delayed and there was
considerable disengagement.
Throughout the pilot it was noted that the level of engagement from lecturers
varied. In some pilot programmes, lecturers showed great enthusiasm to
contribute to the pilot. This included reorganising classroom observations
when the project officer could not attend initially agreed times, e-mailing
lecture handouts to the project officer and granting access to WebCT pages.
Lecturing staff on other programmes displayed less enthusiasm. Lecturers
sought to avoid classroom observation and expressed reluctance to share
resources.
When analysed, it was noted that within the programmes with more active
engagement the primary liaison was generally a senior member of the
lecturing staff (e.g. head of school / programme co-ordinator or director of
teaching and learning). These individuals liaised between the TIC project and
the programme, seeking volunteers for the classroom observation and
gathering materials for resource review. They were also often the first to
volunteer for lecture observation.
Within the programmes with more reluctant engagement, the primary liaison
was often an administrative, non-teaching member of staff. These individuals,
while seeking volunteers for the stages of the pilot, could not volunteer
themselves. This, we suspect, gave rise to reluctance amongst those
10
members of staff asked to volunteer for classroom observation, and possibly
to the feeling that they were being singled out unfairly for external scrutiny.
Therefore, we conclude that if you want buy in from programmes and schools
the visible enthusiasm and engagement of senior members of academic staff,
along with evidence that they are willing to hold themselves to the same
scrutiny as more junior members of staff is important.
Lesson 2: Design the tool to be quick, easy, and informative
A difficult, time-consuming process will lead to disengagement from the staff
involved. During the pilot primary liaisons from the different programmes /
modules approached the completion of the tool in different ways and this
affected the level of support they received. There were three main modes for
completing the tool:
1 – Some printed the tool out and completed the hard copy in their own time.
This meant that they were cut off from the hyperlinked explanations and
resources within the document.
2 – Some completed the tool electronically. These people had access to
hyperlinked explanations and resources but not to the advice of the TIC
project officer.
3 – Some completed the tool in the presence of the TIC project officer, where
they were able to ask the project officer directly for clarifications and examples
during the process.
It was found that those who completed the hard copy in their own time felt
greater levels of frustration during the process than those who used the other
two methods. Without access to the project officer, or the TIC resources the
process lacked an informative aspect and was made quite time consuming.
Thus, it is important that TIC creates quality guidance resources as we move
the tool online. These resources will provide and incentive to users to
complete the process, and will provide guidance for good practice following
the process.
11
In response to this, TIC intends to further enhance and simplify the completion
process through the creation of informative audio-visual tools and other
resources over the summer.
Lesson 3: Ensure the process is collaborative in nature
There are two elements to this lesson; firstly seek to work with academic staff
rather than judging them, and secondly, seek the insight that members of
academic staff within your institution can offer you.
It is important to bear in mind that staff within your institution will generally
value inclusive, good teaching practices, and where staff do not follow best
inclusive practice it will usually be due to a lack of understanding or an
inability to implement good practice due to external constraints (e.g. a lack of
resources, time, staffing levels, the physical environment). In either situation, it
is not helpful to express disapproval with the programme / module involved.
Where there is a lack of understanding, provision of inclusive information and
practical tips can be sufficient to encourage best practice. Where it is due to
external constraints aim to work with the programme / module to find the best
possible compromise or solution.
Always take into consideration the insight possessed into good teaching
practice by the staff you are working with. Staff will have invaluable
understanding of:
-
The areas where their students experience difficulties,
-
Constraints in resources that affect inclusion in their area,
-
Techniques that work well with their students.
When conducting pilots listen to these staff members, learn from them, and
bring their ideas and solutions to the next programme / module you work with.
Staff will have a lot to share with each other regarding good practice and
strategies that work for their students.
12
Lesson 4: Highlight the progress to date
All programmes, modules and individual staff members will currently engage
in some inclusive practices though they may be unaware of this. Staff may
view ‘inclusion’ as a new and exotic concept, and may feel ill equipped to
tackle the needs of an increasingly diverse student population. They may view
the mantra ‘inclusive practices are good practices’ as unconvincing and may
be unaware of the myriad of actions they engage in on a daily basis that
enhances the inclusivity of their teaching.
Therefore, it can be very beneficial to highlight to staff where their
engagement with good teaching practices is also ensuring that they are more
inclusive. Many lecturers will be unaware of the many daily practices they
engage in that further the inclusivity of their teaching, whether that be the
range of teaching materials they use, the sample essays they distribute, the
key texts they highlight, or the summarising they do at the beginning and end
of class to ensure students understand the main learning goals.
By highlighting these current practices you can ensure that future
recommendations to enhance inclusion seem less daunting.
Future Work on the TIC project
This pilot, which was the central task of phase II of the TIC project was
necessary to ensure that the draft self-evaluation tool reflected and responded
to the realities of the academic environment, including the diversity of
disciplines within College, the resulting diversity of teaching and assessment
methods, and the limitations experienced by programmes and modules
regarding physical environment, resources etc. The pilot allowed TIC to:
-
Enhance the usability of the tool by pin pointing jargon and ambiguity in
questioning,
-
Better understand the complexity and diversity of programmes,
modules, teaching methods, assessment methods across TCD,
-
Gain a sense of the student perspective, highlighting recurring
concerns that may have been omitted from the original draft of the tool,
13
-
Gain a sense of the staff perspective, highlighting concerns that may
have been omitted from the original draft of the tool, and
-
Seek out, learn from, and bring awareness to, existing good practices
within the teaching and learning environment of TCD.
From the pilot feedback the draft self-evaluation tool was revised, extended
and clarified. It went through three main drafts (September 09, February 10
and May 10) and numerous interim drafts. At this point the content of the tool
is ready to be transferred online.
An online version of the TIC self-evaluation tool is currently in design and will
be complete by October 2010. The online version of the tool will use all the
resources the online medium offers to ensure it is usable and easy to
complete. This will include the creation of a user-friendly interface, a log in/ log
out system so that work can be saved and returned to, and the use of
audiovisual materials and website hyperlinks to ensure each question on the
tool is clear and unambiguous to users.
Over phase III of the TIC project, which will run through the academic year
10/11 TIC will seek to pilot the online version of the tool so as to further
enhance usability and scope, and to embed this tool within processes and
policies of TCD so as to ensure the longevity of the tool.
In this phase TIC will also seek to pilot the online tool within other Higher
Level institutions in Ireland in order to assess the viability of extending the use
of the tool beyond TCD during phase III of the project. Collaborators will be
sought at this point. It is anticipated that the final tool will either be open for
use by everyone involved in teaching and assessment across the Higher
Level sector in Ireland or, if this proves difficult or the final tool is too specific
to TCD, other institutions will be able to construct their own version of the tool.
This will ensure that inclusion post-registration is mainstreamed across the
Higher education sector in Ireland.
14
Appendix – Example of Key Suggestions template
Programme Design Suggestions
Who
Evaluate the formulation of programme learning outcomes
as they develop and evolve for potential barriers to
learning for diverse student groupings and consider
strategies for overcoming any barriers found.
Ensure there is alignment between learning outcomes, and
teaching and assessment methods.
Inform IS Services and the library of difficulties faced by
your students when accessing resources.
When
Orientation Suggestions
Confirm all induction materials follow clear print guidelines.
Who
When
Physical Environment Suggestions
As far as possible, aim to ensure that the size of class
rooms is adequate for the numbers of students within each
tutorial group, and that acoustics and lighting are
appropriate.
Consider alternative meeting places for wheelchair users
who may have difficulty entering staff offices.
Who
When
Accessible Information Suggestions
Add the following strap-line to all published information for
students (e.g. programme handbook): ‘This document is
available in alternative format upon request from *email*’.
Keep a back up word document of all circulated material
for this purpose.
Include module and programme outcomes within the
programme handbook or online.
Agree a uniform method for making materials available
online for students.
Who
When
Information Technology Suggestions
Circulate links to the web accessibility guidelines and the
Accessible information policy to all staff and remind them of
the importance of following these guidelines.
Notify IS Services of any required software and any IT
related difficulties reported by your students.
Who
When
Formal Classroom teaching Suggestions
Inform all teaching staff of the importance of accessible
teaching and provide them with resources and
opportunities to enhance inclusive teaching practices.
Advise staff on this programme of these resources.
Who
When
15
E-Learning Suggestions
Ensure staff are aware of the accessibility guidelines
provided by the Web Office and TIC.
Consider student computing access when designing elearning.
Circulate Accessible Information hyperlink to all staff,
highlighting the importance of following College policy.
Who
When
Placement Suggestions
Include specific information on inclusion in training for
placement providers.
Consider programme based strategies to help students
who may find additional costs acting as barriers.
Consider restructuring placement timetabling to further
integrate placement and class time.
Who
When
Group Work Suggestions
Consider and respond to accessibility difficulties that can
arise in group work.
Consider creating group work facilities for your students.
Who
When
Assessment and Progression Suggestions
Publish and explain all learning outcomes aligned to
assessment and teaching methods and assessment
details in your handbook.
Add grading rubric to handbook
Ensure students are offered clear, productive, and timely
feedback on all assignments.
Who
When
If you would like more information on the TIC project, please contact Michelle Garvey, project
officer at include@tcd.ie.
Works Cited
The Revised College Accessibility Policy: July 2009. Trinity College Dublin.
http://www.tcd.ie/about/policies/accessible-info-policy.php.
16