In the Throes of Change: An insight into the impact of the EQAL initiative at
Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU)
‘In the Throes of Change’ was commissioned to capture the experience of implementing the
Enhancing Quality and Assessment for Learning (EQAL) initiative at Manchester Metropolitan
University (MMU). The aim of the report is two-fold: to capture evidence in a journalistic style of the
impact of the “change experience” and to inform the work of other institutions embarking on their
own curriculum transformation initiatives.
The EQAL initiative is not yet complete; written in spring 2012, the report captures the views of
MMU staff and students caught up in a process of far-reaching curriculum change. Twelve in-depth
interviews were held during February 2012 with staff ranging from members of the Executive to
curriculum leaders and administrative personnel. In addition, the Vice-President of the Student
Union was interviewed to gain insight into the student perspective on EQAL.
The EQAL initiative has been informed by work undertaken by the JISC-funded Supporting
Responsive Curricula (SRC) project and by MMU's new Strategic Framework for Learning Teaching
and Assessment and Threshold Standards for the Student Experience.
Introduction
Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) is a multi-site university with over 35,000 students
formed from a number of institutional mergers which left a legacy of different approaches to
learning, teaching, assessment and information management across the institution. The size and
diversity of the institution, combined with indifferent National Student Survey (NSS) results (in
particular under the category of Organisation and Management) and looming changes in the
relationship between student and university as a result of increased student fees prompted senior
management to initiate an ambitious four-strand change programme designed to improve the
student experience and increase the efficiency of academic processes. The initiative, Enhancing
Quality and Assessment for Learning or EQAL, commenced two years ago.
A number of initiatives have come together under the EQAL banner; combined, they have produced
significant changes to the curricular, administrative and quality assurance functions of the university.
Following developments in the technical infrastructure, there have also been fundamental changes
to the way students interact with the university through its online learning environment.
Deputy Vice Chancellor, Kevin Bonnett, describes the EQAL initiative as ‘a multi-faceted and
medium-term project’. Thus the views articulated in this report reflect the beliefs, emotions and
aspirations of individuals caught up in the throes of a significant, but as yet, incomplete process of
change. As a result, their perceptions are inevitably coloured by their role, their ability to see the
wider picture and the degree of impact EQAL has had on their working practices – for some, a sense
of frustration and loss of control predominate, for others there is a feeling of relief at having
achieved goals on the edge of possibility. Overall, there is broad understanding and acceptance of
1
the aims of the initiative and satisfaction in working together to achieve an improved student
experience.
Those involved in the EQAL initiative tell the story in their own words under four broad headings: the
academic, IT systems, quality assurance and student-facing dimensions. Under each dimension,
there is an outline of what has been achieved, and why, followed by a discussion of the benefits
encountered and challenges met. Each section concludes with an outline of some of the unexpected
outcomes produced by EQAL.
Academic dimension
Achievements
The EQAL initiative has standardised the curriculum in all disciplines (with occasional exceptions) to a
consistent 30-credit unit model with a set number of learning outcomes and summative assessments
per unit. In September 2011, the new undergraduate curriculum structure was introduced at levels 3
and 4, the foundation and first-year programmes. During 2012–2013, the revised structure is being
extended to level 5 (year two of an undergraduate degree) and to level 6 in 2013-2014 so that the
new framework will be in force on all undergraduate programmes from September 2013.
Postgraduate courses are not involved in the initiative.
“The process has been evolutionary as much as revolutionary - there was no big bang. The new
curriculum was introduced for levels 3 and 4 initially and is now moving on to levels 5 and 6 so it
unfolds as those first-year students progress on through their degree programmes.” Kevin Bonnett,
Deputy Vice-Chancellor
The new structure demands a more consistent approach to assessment planning and organisation;
the way assessment data is collected has also undergone change. Academic teams have been asked
to rethink and then revalidate their learning outcomes using a new programme modification and
review process; they then input information about the modified unit specifications directly into the
university’s curriculum database using a template designed for the purpose. Following the
introduction of a web-services approach to the university’s IT infrastructure, the data can then be reused many times – for example, in strategic decision-making, marketing or rewriting the university’s
prospectus.
Redesigning the undergraduate curricular structure has created a further opportunity to upgrade the
university’s curriculum offer. The Employability Curriculum Framework, completed just prior to the
commencement of the EQAL initiative, has been embedded into all new assessment documentation:
academics drawing up programme and unit modifications are now asked to outline how learning
outcomes will support the achievement of graduate outcomes; opportunities to demonstrate skills
and attributes are then flagged up for students in the description of each assessment and included
on feedback forms. Initially a separate initiative, the integration of employability has been an
example of the broad scope of the EQAL initiative and the momentum it has created. The
employability initiative has been led by Penny Renwick, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Quality and
Development:
2
“Without EQAL it would have taken a great deal longer to have arrived at this point. Although
employability wasn’t the main thrust of EQAL, a lot has been achieved in terms of forging links
between curriculum design and graduate prospects. I suspect that EQAL and the changes in
documentation it has introduced have had a big part to play in raising awareness of employability at
MMU.” Penny Renwick, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Quality and Development
Rationale for change
Pedagogic benefits have been the driver behind EQAL reforms. Prompted by the NSS and internal
student surveys, the university recognised the need to focus more closely on the student experience,
in particular in terms of assessment and feedback. Senior staff realised that a better balance needed
to be struck between the demands of assessment and the workload associated with it; academic
staff needed more time to devise more frequent and achievable formative assessments, and
students needed more time and opportunity to respond to feedback:
“… Reform was driven pedagogically; we needed to put a cap on summative assessment and increase
formative assessment (assessment for learning) while still controlling the size and range of learning
outcomes for each unit.” Kevin Bonnett, Deputy Vice-Chancellor
There was also an issue of parity across the university’s varied programmes of learning. The size and
diversity of MMU had resulted in approaches to assessment driven by tradition and disciplinary
culture. The result was an unequal and sometimes burdensome assessment experience which was
impacting negatively on students’ perception of the university:
“We recognised that if we were to be one institution, albeit made up of different faculties and
campuses with different origins and histories, we needed a greater degree of standardisation and
consistency about the way the curriculum was assessed.” Peter Dunleavy, Pro Vice-Chancellor,
Curriculum Innovation
The inequality of MMU students’ assessment experiences was also mirrored in the workload of
academic staff – a matter of concern for Peter Dunleavy who saw a link between excessive staff
workloads and the university’s lower NSS ratings:
“… a student in one discipline could have a very different assessment experience to a student in
another discipline. Not only was this inconsistent, it could also be unproductive since overworked
academic staff were often unable to get feedback to students in time for it to be put to good effect.
Unsurprisingly, students did not rate the organisation of their courses very highly as staff struggled to
deliver such a complex curriculum. Complexity is difficult to organise.” Peter Dunleavy, Pro ViceChancellor, Curriculum Innovation
Care had to be taken when introducing the revised structure to MMU staff to differentiate between
improving efficiency and consistency by means of standardisation and stifling the creativity of
curriculum experts, a message that has not been easy to convey:
“We stress, however, that creativity remains important; the university is noted for the quality and
variety of assignment types and we don’t want that to change. Academic staff are in charge of their
own destiny and retain control over the planning and delivery of the curriculum but, at the same
3
time, we have tried to encourage ways of demonstrating learning outcomes that do not entail
unachievable or inconsistent workloads.” Peter Dunleavy, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Curriculum
Innovation
Benefits and challenges
A standardised assessment structure has thus become the academic priority of the EQAL initiative.
Students can now expect parity in terms of workload from one unit to the next, and between their
chosen programme and that of their peers; students should be able to manage their time and
feedback more effectively as a result of taking fewer assessments, and staff previously
overburdened by complex summative assessments should have more time to refocus on formative
assessment and improving the quality of feedback. Staff efforts can also be redirected towards
enhancing the institution’s standing – for example, through innovative practice or research, overseas
recruitment, commercial income generation or community engagement initiatives.
Along with these potential benefits, changes to the assessment structure have presented some
complex challenges. It was clear from the outset that to ensure coherence in terms of the student
experience the new structure would need to ‘grow’ with the first-year students; this would
necessitate a very strict schedule of events with work occurring on several fronts simultaneously.
Thus two years of intense activity have been experienced by academic and administrative staff as
they deliver /support the first phase of the new curriculum, submit modifications for the next stage
and, at the same time, maintain the status quo on courses unaffected by the EQAL initiative.
Unsurprisingly, the speed of change and initial additional workload have been cited by some staff as
having a detrimental effect on teaching, with the burden falling unevenly on those most heavily
committed to frontline activities:
“Lecturers who have high teaching loads, and consequently a large volume of marking, they would
have a large number of units to re-write for EQAL at the same time as teaching and marking to
undertake their normal workload. This has created a lot of pressure on tutors.” EQAL Faculty Lead
Academic staff have also raised concerns that the reduction in the number of summative
assessments to two per unit has placed too great a value on each assessment, while also reducing
optionality and choice for students. Some staff have found it necessary to combine learning
outcomes that have little real connection in order to fit the standard:
“I don’t like the 30-credit unit size; it’s too big and prevents a diverse curriculum, reduces student
choice and requires lumping things together which don’t naturally fit.” EQAL Faculty Lead
Students also worry that the higher value of each assessment could have a proportionate impact on
the degree awarded if they underperform in several units, and both students and tutors have
queried whether limiting the number of learning outcomes will conflict with the requirements of
professional bodies:
“I am concerned about losing the optional units in courses. Without these, professional bodies might
be less interested in students because they won’t have such a broad education.” Vice President,
Student Union
4
Nonetheless, there is recognition among curriculum staff that EQAL represents a ‘fantastic
opportunity to review and update our provision’ and the process of change has not always been a
painful one. In many faculties, good teamwork has enabled curriculum staff to meet the challenge of
EQAL. Although at a very early stage, some staff are also beginning to recognise the value of
formative assessment, and the benefits to be gained from a richer variety of assessments:
“… reducing summative assessments to two, where some may not initially like it, it means using a
better variety of assessment types, better use of formative assessments and different methods of
assessment. The requirement is for two summative assessments so teams can be more creative with
formative assessments.” EQAL Faculty Lead
“… there is a bit of a buzz about assessment at the moment. People are asking us if we are assessing
students in the most appropriate way. [EQAL] helps us think about assessment as an ongoing rather
than just a summative activity.” Rod Cullen, Centre for Learning and Teaching (CeLT)
Unforeseen outcomes
Central services such as the Centre for Learning and Teaching (CeLT) and the Centre for Academic
Standards and Quality Enhancement (CASQE) have gained a wider profile across the university as a
result of EQAL – an unforeseen but beneficial outcome of the initiative. Academic staff, for example,
turned to CeLT for assistance in writing learning outcomes for the new undergraduate curriculum.
Evidence of benefits gained from involving the CeLT team in the first round of unit modifications
persuaded the EQAL Board to task the Centre with reviewing all learning outcomes for units at levels
5 and 6:
“I know this has been a leap of faith for many, but with the assistance of CeLT, we have made
remarkable progress.” Peter Dunleavy, Pro Vice-Chancellor
The role of a small but dedicated quality assurance team has also claimed a wider significance:
“The university has for the first time grasped the nettle of making the fundamental changes to the
student experience that today’s climate demands. I also believe the Centre for Academic Standards
has gained a higher profile across the university. In that respect, we have moved forward
significantly.” Peggy Cooke, Head of CASQE
IT systems dimension
Achievements
“The introduction of the new curriculum across the board for all students in that year was beneficial
in that it forced us to do a lot of things differently.” Kevin Bonnett, Deputy Vice-Chancellor
One of the complexities of EQAL is that some projects already underway before the launch of the
initiative have become absorbed under the EQAL banner. The common thread that united each
project was enhancing the student experience, but sometimes this can occur in less obvious ways –
for example, upgrading the IT systems and administrative infrastructure that support the student
learning experience.
5
One of the most striking and challenging achievements of EQAL has been the new Programme and
Modification Review Process. This includes a new online unit specification system, now completed
by academic teams, which provides a single source of assessment information for all units in
undergraduate programmes. The system, created by a multi-disciplinary in-house group, has been
used to record the details of all newly modified units during the last year.
The origins of this project lie before EQAL but coming to fruition at the same time as EQAL has
enabled the role of IT systems and infrastructure in supporting assessment management to be more
widely recognised.
EQAL has also enabled the development of other systems to move forward at a faster pace; notable
among the work overseen by Student Services is the personalised timetables project. Students who
know which sessions to attend, when their assignments are due, and can access this information
from any location, are more likely to progress academically but, while desirable, such a project might
have foundered for want of targeted investment. The timetabling project not only acquired
additional financial support, once part of EQAL, but also broadened understanding of how the basics
of student life can impact on academic success:
“There is a better understanding now of the connection between basic aspects of the curriculum and
the student experience… it doesn’t matter how good teaching and learning is, it will be dragged
down if the basics aren’t in place, like knowing where you are supposed to be, what assignments will
be set and when the submission dates are. I think that understanding of this is beginning to grow
across the institution now.” Mark Stubbs, Head of Department, Learning & Research Technologies
Rationale for change
Completing changes to the infrastructure under the auspices of a cross-institutional initiative such as
EQAL has offered a number of advantages: it has enabled a wider community to realise the
interdependence of apparently disparate elements of the university experience; technical and
investment issues are also more rapidly addressed with senior management involvement:
“EQAL bundled a number of changes together and gave them momentum. There was a clearer set of
relationships... It linked a number of developments that had previously been free-standing and
allowed connections to be made that might not have been made without the EQAL process... Taking
issues to the EQAL Board was helpful because it meant that decisions were made by, and had the
backing of, a key group of senior staff.” Alexander Thorley, Director of Student Services and Deputy
Registrar
Benefits and challenges
Although MMU has had to make significant additional investment to achieve a system of the right
size and scale, online access to personalised timetables remains one of the most visible of the EQAL
achievements from the student perspective. Student representatives have been involved throughout
the development process:
6
“I sit on different committees within the university. We talk about the timetable changes, for
example. The Student Union does a lot of research… some of our research has informed the EQAL
process – for example, on timetabling.” Vice President, Student Union
Just as personalised timetables add a 21st century quality to the student experience, so the online
unit specification system will make data capture and re-use simpler and more streamlined over time;
all units across the MMU’s curriculum offer are now visible to all staff, although only key staff have
the right to modify them. However, teething problems with the unit specification system initially
caused frustration for both academic and administrative staff. Curriculum staff who left the task of
uploading data to just before the deadline, and then experienced difficulties in managing the new
system, were particularly discomforted – an experience which highlights the need for academic
teams to engage early with new developments in institutional systems.
The amount of information academic staff are required to provide, however, has been reduced to
make the new system more manageable and to avoid simply replicating traditional practices:
“We knew we were going to be asking a great deal from our academic colleagues particularly in such
a short space of time; that’s why it was important to do an 80:20 analysis first to determine what
was really essential to avoid a burdensome level of detail.” Mark Stubbs, Head of Department,
Learning & Research Technologies
Unforeseen outcomes
In terms of infrastructure development, it has sometimes been difficult to determine what should be
included in the EQAL initiative and what lay outside. The question still remains unresolved going
forward. Should EQAL become a dynamic infrastructure change programme that encompasses all
future IT systems developments or should it be bounded by its original purpose – the enhancement
of the student experience?
The realisation that apparently disparate strands of activity need to work in close harmony may be
one of the lasting legacies of EQAL, but with this realisation come new challenges such as redefining
the boundaries between different aspects of the university’s work and the committees and boards
that oversee it.
Quality assurance dimension
Achievements
EQAL has had an equally significant impact on quality assurance processes at MMU. Led by Peggy
Cooke, the Centre for Academic Standards and Quality Enhancement (CASQE) has been closely
involved in the new Programme Modification and Review Process which, as noted in the previous
section, has been aided by the upgraded IT systems for recording and managing assessment data.
The pedagogic benefits of simpler, more consistent assessments were the key driver behind the
involvement of CASQE in the EQAL initiative:
“I think the major driver for the Academic Standards and Quality Enhancement team has been the
potential to improve the student experience. Before 2010, there was considerable variation from unit
to unit in the assessment burden placed on students (and therefore on staff). Now we have a
standard of two assessments per 30-credit unit in the new Undergraduate Curriculum Framework.
7
We also needed to reduce the impact of burdensome processes on academic staff so that they could
spend more time creating a positive learning experience for students.” Peggy Cooke, Head of CASQE
Nonetheless, the online repository is also yielding benefits in management terms by enabling the
university to gain a more immediate overview of how the curriculum is performing. Standing panels
have further speeded up the institution’s quality assurance response by centralising the task of
dealing with curriculum and assessment issues, a process made feasible by consistent, centralised
online data:
“The institutional six-year cycle of programme review, modification and approval still takes place, but
is now undertaken using a standing panel process. Thus processes of modification and approval,
which previously took place at a local faculty level, have become centralised providing institutional
oversight of developments.” Peggy Cooke, Head of CASQE
In a further quality assurance development, an online student survey now tests the views of
students at Christmas and later in the academic year. The twice-yearly exercise mirrors aspects of
the National Student Survey to pick up early on issues that need to be addressed. Some 10,716
students responded to the first use of the questionnaire in December 2011. Data tagged with unit
codes was then sent directly to deans and heads of departments to check before being forwarded on
to programme and unit leaders for action. Mark Stubbs, Head of Department of Learning & Research
Technologies, feels the online survey is already justifying the effort put into the quality assurance
aspects of EQAL:
“We compared scores for our three pilot faculties and this year showed an improvement, not just at
first year as we had expected, but also in other years. But the really good thing for me is that I can
see this informed continuous monitoring and improvement becoming part of our culture over time.
That’s a key part of what EQAL has achieved.” Mark Stubbs, Head of Department of Learning &
Research Technologies
Rationale for change
With these improvements in place, the university is poised to move from retrospective, facultybased annual course monitoring to a live process of continuous monitoring and improvement,
enabling the health of programmes and units to be checked at appropriate times in the academic
year. Any actions taken can be also reported to students within the year, a significant advance that
lies at the heart of the EQAL vision of improving the student experience:
“The Continuous Monitoring and Improvement Process is an enhancement on the previous
retrospective annual monitoring process and encourages live monitoring so that actions taken can be
reported to students within the year.” Peggy Cooke, Head of CASQE
Benefits and challenges
The centralisation of quality assurance processes aided by efficient online systems offers clear
benefits for institutional strategy and decision-making:
“When the institution has full oversight of each programme and unit’s performance, it will become
easier to identify key trends or themes, and plan strategically.” Peggy Cooke, Head of CASQE
8
From the perspective of academic staff, for the first time, there is a complete repository of all
undergraduate units offered at the university which can be checked to ensure that learning
outcomes are not repeated or overlooked. There are also potential benefits for students from the
integrated online systems, which are becoming more apparent as the EQAL process moves into its
second year:
“Staff have more understanding now as they are able to see the flow of information from unit
specifications to student timetables and reading lists. It was hard at first to convince people because
there was simply nothing to show upfront. Now there is.” Mark Stubbs, Head of Department of
Learning & Research Technologies
New systems, however, present new challenges. The first is identifying the ‘pinch points’ where an
increased volume of work might occur. Faculty quality administrators, for example, experienced a
particularly heavy burden during the first year of EQAL, as their role entailed supporting curriculum
staff in preparing and submitting unit modifications through the new modification and review
process while still completing the routine aspects of their work:
“I often worked over my scheduled hours. I don’t think anyone envisaged at the outset just how much
work it would actually cause.” Faculty Quality Administrator
Faculty quality administrators were often the first port of call when problems occurred in operating
the new system or when new documents were required. These additional responsibilities had to be
absorbed into the normal workflow:
“Communication is a major part of my job: emailing programme leaders with new templates or
procedures, reminding them of deadlines, making sure they get information at the right time are all
activities I complete on a day-today basis. Once you introduce new procedures, the need for
communication escalates. A programme team might ask me for a new template, for example, which I
have to ask someone else to produce, and so on.” Faculty Quality Administrator
“There were teething problems with the new system and I was often the first to be asked when
programme leaders had difficulties in uploading or saving their data.” Faculty Quality Administrator
A further challenge lies in communicating the value of time-consuming new procedures to academic
staff. The reasons for the short timeframe, in which several initiatives had to be addressed in
parallel, are not always understood by academic staff who found themselves revising the
undergraduate curriculum structure during holiday periods:
“The workload was considerable for everyone and impinged on periods of leave. It also coincided
with the new timetable regime and the continuous improvement plan (CIP). The time frame meant
that staff were under considerable pressure…. People support the idea of EQAL but were not given
the timeframe to do it properly… The timing undermined what might have been a better process.”
EQAL Faculty Lead
Concerns still exist about the degree of acceptance by academic staff of the need to standardise the
credit structure and the extent of staff ownership of the changes, issues which may potentially
9
undermine the EQAL process. Limited consultation arising from the tight timeframe has left many
staff feeling out of the loop:
“The biggest resistance occurred over the standardisation issue… Academics were not opposed to the
principles of EQAL but they felt that they weren’t always part of the decision making and discussion.”
EQAL Faculty Lead
The short term pain of those at the sharp end of the new modular system is recognised by the Head
of CASQE, Peggy Cooke who emphasises the need for openness, clarity and timely communication in
an initiative of these proportions:
“Most disagreements occurred over deadlines which had to be imposed because of the interlocking
nature of the different strands of the initiative. We couldn’t drive forward development of the
personalised timetable, for example, until we had the assessment framework for all the units. It was
sometimes a thorny process. You needed to be clear in your own mind where you could be flexible
and where you couldn’t, then be completely honest with the faculties concerned… More and better
communication would be my watchword if I were to do this again.” Peggy Cooke, Head of CASQE
Unforeseen outcomes
A number of hidden and unexpected issues came to light in changing the processes that underlie
curriculum delivery. Some academic staff struggle to define their curricula in terms of learning
outcomes; some units contain more complex content than others; programme teams are not the
same size and do not hold regular meetings with all their stakeholders. Standardising the number of
assessments within the tight timeframe demanded by the EQAL initiative may not have resulted in
improved quality in all cases, at least not in the first instance:
“Programme teams vary in size; some of the larger teams had real difficulty finding agreement and
needed more time, especially if they had to consult with external stakeholders such as employers and
professional bodies... I have a feeling that we still have a lot of work ahead of us. Bureaucratically,
modifications present us with a lot of work.” Faculty Quality Administrator
And despite the advantages of integrated online systems, there are also hidden dangers if the
original data is inaccurate:
“If the student record system is to be the one definitive source of information, then it has to be right.
If we were starting again, it would have been good to start with a well-populated, really accurate set
of data. Otherwise, inaccurate information gets pumped into every system in the university and the
inaccuracy will get magnified many times.” Mark Stubbs, Head of Department of Learning &
Research Technologies
Apart from these concerns, there has been an unexpected uniformity of support for a period of
reflection or a conference to consolidate new developments, celebrate the achievements of EQAL
and revisit the vision that initially drove the transformation:
“It would be good to collect all the available feedback to build up the overall picture. As it is, small
groups form and reflect in their individual ways; whether administrators here in the office or those
10
sitting on the EQAL board, they are locked into their own perspective. What happens next needs to be
informed by what has happened, and we need to be able to see the overall picture for that to take
place. This was a huge project; programme teams need time to make appropriate consultations over
the new curriculum, to celebrate their successes and change what needs to be changed in the light of
real-world experience.” Faculty Quality Administrator
Student-facing dimension
Achievements
Many of the EQAL innovations involve improvements to the underpinning aspects of curriculum
management, but there are also aspects that impinge directly on the student experience.
The EQAL initiative has also overseen the switch from WebCT to Moodle, a decision taken under an
earlier review of learning technologies but implemented as part of EQAL. The implementation of a
new VLE has brought with it an online presence for over 90% of courses – a significant achievement
which continues to rise as the result of Moodle champions working in the faculties. e-Learning
support officers funded through the EQAL initiative are also providing pedagogical support to
faculties to ensure that the best use can be made of VLE-based resources.
The Student Portal has benefited from additional services for students and has been refreshed in
terms of design. Of paramount importance has been providing students with seamless access to vital
personal and course information. Whether through smartphones, via Moodle or the SharePoint
Student Portal, with a single sign-on students can (or shortly will) find personalised timetable
information, obtain assessment information, receive updates about loans, outstanding fee payments
and information about student support. The improvement to student-facing systems has been one
achievement from EQAL that has received uniform approval:
“I think there is still much to do, but one thing that we have more than achieved is embracing the
notion of a single central place for everything.” Peter Dunleavy, Pro Vice-Chancellor for Curriculum
Innovation
Rationale for change
There is a clear rationale for supplying 21st century students with a technology-enhanced learning
environment. Integrated systems enable institutions to ease students through the transition into
university life and support their progress by providing rapid access to essential information:
“After all, our students expect ways of working that are familiar to them and the Student Portal has
delivered that. We now need to check the quality of what is on the VLE and explore new online routes
to curriculum delivery such as podcasting.” Peter Dunleavy, Pro Vice-Chancellor for Curriculum
Innovation
Benefits and challenges
Greater transparency of information for students may also bring benefits to the institution in terms
of higher academic standards. The same online systems that provide rapid access to curriculum
information for students can provide university managers and academic staff with the data they
require about the academic curriculum – the timing and type of assessments, percentage of
11
formative and summative assessments, for example. For Deputy Vice Chancellor, Kevin Bonnett, this
level of transparency can only drive up the quality of the university’s provision:
“Evidence is much more immediate as a result of the use of technology; we can interrogate the trend
data in faculty assessment boards, asking how successful is each unit? What is the percentage of
good honours degrees? How are certain student groups performing?
It also exposes whether course information that went through the approval process is actually
happening. But more than a check on what takes place, the system encourages consistency and
transparency in itself: students can see the information published about the unit and can ask
questions; they can ask why a unit has no online content if an academic has not responded. This is
transforming the way students interact with the university.” Kevin Bonnett, Deputy Vice-Chancellor
Greater consistency in the design of the curriculum will also have an impact on student perceptions
of the university and its aims:
“… It is also beneficial for students who will have a standard experience across the institution.
Faculties are now part of one institution; previously, crossing faculties in your choice of units could
have felt as if you were changing institutions.” Faculty Quality Administrator
There is already evidence that students acknowledge and value the steps taken on their behalf by
the university, despite the considerable challenges presented by changing practice in such a large
institution:
“I appreciate why MMU has done EQAL – for a more positive student experience. These things just
take time, it’s such a big university. On the whole, the university does listen to the student voice.”
Vice President, Student Union
Unforeseen outcomes
It is too early in the process for full information about the impact of the redeveloped student-facing
systems. However, Moodle has become a surprisingly well-established and welcome part of student
life:
“Moodle is now used uniformly and has been a big success. It was unexpected to see how successful
Moodle was. All information students need about their course is now available [on Moodle].” Vice
President, Student Union
Conclusion
Many institutions have adapted slowly to the power shift of recent years from an institution- centric
approach to teaching and learning to a student-centred personalised approach – or have yet to do
so. MMU has taken the harder option of grasping pedagogic and technological change
simultaneously as a result of recognising the interdependence of so much that falls under the
heading of ‘the student experience’.
EQAL has been implemented in an almost perfect storm of lower than average NSS survey results,
increased value placed on the student voice, the potential of greater flexibility in IT infrastructure
12
and growing expectations of access to transparent, timely information. The impact of the ensuing
changes has been considerable, but those changes have been accomplished within a remarkably
short period of time.
Even those who have felt deeply unhappy about the timeframe of the EQAL initiative have
acknowledged the usefulness of standardising assessments across the university. The role of CeLT
was universally felt to be positive. Linking employability skills to the curriculum represented another
largely accepted shift in the landscape, from education for its own sake to a requirement to
demonstrate the fitness of courses in terms of student progression.
As an initiative to enhance the many facets that make up the student experience, EQAL is an
important story for other institutions to learn from in the current environment of shifting
relationships between educational institutions, their students and the economy. Nonetheless, there
is also a story to be told internally. The need to review, celebrate and reflect on the benefits and
challenges was a point articulated by a significant number of interviewees. This would provide an
occasion to complete the circle of change in line with the Kolb reflective cycle, drawing participants
together to be heard and to learn and to share ways of refocusing the balance in the curriculum
towards formative assessment. It is perhaps significant to note that the underpinning aim of the
EQAL initiative – assessment for learning – received remarkably little mention in this sample of
interviews. Starting that process might form the basis of the next phase of the EQAL initiative.
Produced for Manchester Metropolitan University by Ros Smith and Ellen Lessner
April 2012
13