2. UG-FLEX is a four year project that aims to transform university systems and business processes in order to support flexible curricula.
3. Reduce blockages and inefficiencies in documentation flow and data; Better help and guidance to staff, where appropriate through a technology-supported approach; Improved service to students on “non-standard” programmes So, what does this mean?
6. PROJECT BACKGROUND, CONTEXT, DRIVERS College’s Mission: The revised Strategic Plan states a goal of the University is “to offer flexible programmes through choice in the pace, place and mode of learning”. Vice Chancellor’s Group announcement on University Funding, February 2010, citing examples of diversification including more short courses, overseas students, consultancy, research & enterprise income, and “local vocation study”. Taking forward recommendations of University’s 2006-07 Part-Time & Flexible Learning Working Group. Anticipated demographic downturn in traditional 18 year old full-time market Continuing potential for increased participation of WP students Blurring of distinctions between full-time and part-time students Demand from business and industry Government policy (Leitch, Milburn, “Higher Ambitions”......whatnext?)
7. “What is needed, to fit the needs of students in the future, whether full–time or part-time are new ways of studying flexibly.” Professor Christine King – Vice Chancellor & Chief Executive Staffordshire University. (2008)
8. SO, WHAT DO WE MEAN BY “A FLEXIBLE CURRICULUM”?
9.
10. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION FINDINGS Diversity of approaches to flexibility within institution Schools are driven by individual market needs and access to business intelligence on demand is weak Awareness of current models of flexible curricula patchy Current systems and procedures perceived by staff and external stakeholders as discouraging innovation. Requirement that management of flexible provision be at local level
11. Students on programmes that have year round start and finish dates and those on part-time programmes have a poorer experience of their learning than those on programmes that fit into the standard academic year. All staff find that the administration/management of workload/tasks associated with students on “non-standard” programmes is greater than those on standard programmes. Any solutions delivered start from a position where trust/confidence is poor Where local solutions are developed, there is little central oversight and anyway sharing of good local practice is poor MORE FINDINGS…..
12. How can we cater for more “non-standard” start and finish dates? How can students alter their pace / speed of study easily and with no detriment to themselves or the institution? How can we better support ‘bespoke’ curriculum? How can we deliver flexibility with agreed boundaries? All enhancements will have a self service interface The quality of data is being improved
13. A flexible curriculum is one that allows a range of options for place of study, pace of study, mode of learning and where possible “bespoke” courses that meet the needs of particular user groups.
16. WHAT ARE YOUR REQUIREMENTS FOR ACHIEVING FLEXIBILITY IN NON-STANDARD START AND FINISH DATES AND SPEED OF STUDY? UG-Flex Stakeholder Workshop Thursday 3rd June, 2010 2-5pm, Seacole Room 111
17. MAIN PROJECT PHASES PHASE 1 (September 2008- May 2009) Project set up including project management infrastructure (Office, staff, steering group etc) Baseline research PHASE 2 (May 2009- July 2009) Collection of good practice models (internal and external) Mapping current provision Review of regulatory and quality framework Stakeholder consultation and requirements mapping
18. MAIN PROJECT PHASES PHASES 3 & 4 (July 09 to August 2011) Systems and process modelling and development Piloting redesigned systems and processes with a selection of non-standard courses Review and carry out any further modifications PHASE 5 (September 2011 to July 2012) Implement new systems in full production mode across the University Dissemination of outcomes Evaluation and Exit Strategy
Project sits in ILS, works closely with OSA & Banner team but promotes a separate identity as much as possibleAims to achieve change in consultation with stakeholders:Decisions are made by appropriate university committee (e.g. LQC, Resource Sub-Committee, Exec)Both Management Group and Steering Group have representation from broad spectrum of schools and offices.Project Steering Group reviews/reflects on project progress and is chaired by Simon Jarvis;Project Management Group delivers action/overseas tasks and outcomes and is chaired by Maureen Castens.
