Presentation at the LCT UK Symposium at Sheffield Hallam University, 2 December 2013.

1. Trials and tribunals: consensus seeking in the approval of course design
in Higher Education
Richard Pountney
Sheffield Hallam University
2 December 2013

2. Research Questions
Research Question
1. What are the characteristics of the
teaching practices that have helped to shape
the educational beliefs and values that
academics bring to curriculum design in
higher education?
2. What are the characteristics of course
planning practices in a UK higher education
institution and how are curricular forms
generated?
Case
CS1: Crossinstitution (n=10)
Case Study in
curriculum
sharing
CS2 Part 1: Single
institution Case
Study in
curriculum design
Methods
Discussion groups
Interviews
Course design texts
3. What are the characteristics of curriculum
approval practices in a UK higher education
institution, and how do academics interpret
and respond to this in reproducing the
curriculum?
CS2 Part 2: Single
institution Case
Study in
curriculum
approval
Interviews
Course design texts
APE observations
Interviews
Course design texts

3. Key concepts from the literature
Curriculum as an idea in practice
PRODUCT
INDIVIDUALISED
INTERACTIONAL
Curriculum influences
PEDAGOGIC
IDENTITY
TRADITIONAL
PROCESS
ACADEMIC
DEVELOPMENT
EMPLOYABILITY
CULTURE
EMERGING
SOCIALISATION
SOCIAL
PRACTICE
Organising principles
INTENDED
QUALITY
DISCIPLINE
PLANNING / DESIGN
HIDDEN
LIVED
COLLABORATION
ASSESSMENT
STUDENTS
COHERENCE
Evaluation
Modelling
OPEN

4. Conceptual Framework
•
•
•
Critical realism as an ontological perspective: the key concept of emergence is
discussed and Archer’s morphogenetic cycle is outlined.
Social realism as an epistemological perspective and explanatory framework:
Bourdieu’s practice theory and the key concepts of field, habitus and doxa are
explained. Bernstein’s code concepts, including the pedagogic device, are
introduced and their value to the study is identified. This theory is extended to
include Maton’s Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) and its epistemic pedagogic device
and codes (specialisation, semantics and autonomy).
Institutional rationality as an organising framework: drawing on institutional
rationality in relation to the legitimation of curriculum authority and expertise.
This is then examined from the perspective of autonomy and the key concepts of
collegiality, bureaucracy and consensus are identified as the organising framework
for the empirical work of this study.
Meta-theories, theories and substantive theories (Maton, 2013a: 15)

5. Empirical Stages
Time
Lived
curriculum
Intended
curriculum
Course
Approval
Enacted
curriculum
Phase 3: APE
Phase 2: Single Institution Case Study
Phase 1: Cross-institution Case Study
APE = Approval Panel Event

6. Data Collection Phases
Phase 1: Case Study of cross-institution curriculum sharing (CS1)
Purpose: to explore characteristics of the collegially focused culture for course design
Method: discussion groups, interviews, and course design texts
Participants: 12 teachers (social science) from 10 UK HEI in two groups:
Group A: the ‘Sharers’ - 6 teachers (A1-A6) from 6 UK HE institutions (I1-I6) exploring making their
course designs ‘open’
Group B: the ‘Cascaders’ - 6 teachers (B1-B6) from 3 UK HE institutions (I7-I9B) exploring the use of
the course designs ‘of others’
Phase 2: Case Study in an institutional context (CS2 part 1)
Purpose: to explore characteristics of the bureaucratically focused culture for course design
Method: interviews, course design texts,
Participants: 16 teachers from 1 UK HEI (I10) in two groups:
Group C: the ‘Approved’ - 9 teachers (C1-C9) from 7 courses (CPT4-11) exploring the course design
and approval process
Group D: the ‘Approval seekers’ - 7 teachers (D1-D7) from 3 course teams (CPT1,2,3) in 1 UK HE
institution (I10) exploring the process of course approval
Phase 3: Case Study in an institutional context (CS2 part 1)
Purpose: to explore characteristics of the consensus-seeking focused culture for course design
Method: interviews, course design texts, observations of approval events
Participants: 17 teachers from 1 UK HEI (I10) in two groups
Group D: the ‘Approval seekers’ - 7 teachers (D1-D7) from 3 course teams (CPT1,2,3) in 1 UK HE
institution (I10) exploring the process of course approval
Group E: the ‘Approvers’ - 10 teachers (E1-E10) exploring the experience of ‘approving’ courses

7. Sharing and making open the curriculum
Module/ Type of material
Pedagogical
Units
12 units (2
hours each)
Pedagogical Activity
Assessment
lectures; learning activities;
tutorials; exercises;
readings
2 tasks: Essay (50%),
Examination (50%)
OER_03: Exploring Religions and
Cultures (20 credits) [module
handbook]
15 units
(2 hours
each)
Lectures; learning activities; 2 tasks: Portfolio (50%);
discussion; comparison;
Critical review (50%)
revision; thinking questions;
readings
OER_04: Sociology of Health and
Illness (10 credits) [module outline,
lecture slides]
OER_05: Sociology of Human
Reproduction (10 credits)
[module outline, lecture slides]
OER_06: Gender and Society (10
credits)
[module outline, lecture slides, reflection
sheet]
OER_07: Comparative Sociology (10
credits) [module outline, lecture slides]
8 units
(2 hours
each)
9 units
(2 hours
each)
9 units (2
hours each)
Lectures; guided
discussion; readings
1 task: Essay (100%)
Lectures; guided
discussion; readings
1 task: Examination
(100%)
Lectures; guided
discussion; readings
3 tasks: Learning diary
(60%), Essay (10%);
Essay (30%)
9 units (2
hours each)
Lectures; guided
discussion; readings
1 task: Examination
(100%)
OER_01: Visual Anthropology (20
credits) [module handbook, lecture
slides, video]
http://learning-connections.co.uk/csap_oer/csap_toolkit/mapping.html
7

8. Course documentation
UG
Politics
1
31
170
52,000
2,700
CPT2
Geography, Housing,
Environment and Planning
UG
Environment and
Planning
7
76
517
154,000
4,300
CPT3
English Language Teaching
PG
English
1
7
63
16,000
2,400
CPT4
Social Science Research
PG
Social Science
7
9
76
23,000
3,700
CPT5
Autism
UG
Education
1
6
55
16,000
2,200
CPT6
Education
PG
Education
12
40
502
157,000
6,300
CPT7
Criminology
UG
Criminology
4
94
569
177,000
5,000
CPT8
Applied Social Science
UG
Social Science
13
136
724
218,000
8,800
CPT9
Performing Arts
FD
Performing Arts
2
10
106
28,000
2,000
CPT10
Built Environment
UG
Built Environment
9
81
574
164,000
7,500
CPT11
Contemporary Fine Art
UG
Fine Art
3
10
82
27,000
2,000
CPT12
Public Services: Policing
Studies
FD
Social Science
2
15
146
42,000
9,100
Total Pages
Course
..Rationale
International Relations
Total Words
CPT1
Modules
Subject Area /
Discipline
Awards
Course Title
Level
Course
Team
8

9. Analytical stages in the study

10. Thematic analysis of the data
Concept and field position
‘Collegially focused’ field
position
‘Bureaucratically focused’ field
position
‘Consensus- seeking focused’
field position
Description
Coding categories sorted under
the concept
Features of the ‘collegially
1.1 Context
focused’ culture as embodied by 1.2 Curriculum
teachers prior experiences in
1.3 Teaching
the ‘lived’ curriculum
1.4 Discipline
1.5 Exchange
1.6 Knowing
1.7 Description
Features of the
2.1 Teacher identity
‘bureaucratically focused’
2.2 Autonomy
culture embodied by teachers’
2.3 Pedagogy
practices and dispositions in the 2.4 Curriculum development
‘intended / formal’ curriculum
2.5 Discipline
2.6 Approval
2.7 Metaphor
Teachers’ experiences of and
3.1 Challenge
responses to the meeting of the 3.2 Consensus
collegial and bureaucratic focus 3.3 Conflict
culture in the Approval process 3.4 Strategy
(including pedagogical
3.5 Expertise
adjustments and identity
3.6 Coherence
conflicts)
3.7 Change

12. Examples from the coding scheme
Code
1.2 Curriculum
[category set]
Description
This set of codes identifies issues
related to curriculum
1.2.1 Lived / informal
[category sub code]
Responses coded as informal / lived
curriculum and formal / intended
curriculum
1.2.2 Intended / formal
[category sub code]
What teachers say about the formal
curriculum
1.3 Teaching
[category set]
This category codes statements that
teachers make about teaching
1.3.1 Teacher role
[category sub code]
Coding of data related to teacher
role
1.3.2 Experience
[category sub code]
Coding of data related to the
experience of teaching
Example quote from data
‘It was really around one of the Housing & Planning
modules where we realised that we hadn’t exchanged
our practice within the department so we began to get
a debate going about that ...’
‘I think I pretty much used the content of what I had
been doing before but the advantages to it becoming a
module I think were first of all that we got a
timetabled slot and that meant that students took it
more seriously ...’
‘The module in the first, when we first put it forward
for the reapproval, was pretty much the module that
had run in the old form. However very close to it being
revalidated it was suddenly thought “could this module
be rolled out across the whole programme?”’
‘Lectures were very clearly about putting as much
information on the slides as I possibly could so that if I
didn’t deliver the material appropriately the students
still had it because it was written.’
‘It was literally “you’ve been hired and we want you to
deliver these 5 modules. Here they are, go and deliver
them.” I was literally a week ahead of the students’
‘I was preparing the material for next week the week
before and I was reading and adjusting and adapting
because, although the material was very good, I
couldn’t just pick it up and deliver it because I didn’t
know the background to it’.

13. Strong classification and framing for course design
and approval
Concept
Stronger
Classification (+C)
- boundaries
between
Degree of emphasis in course on:
Everyday and educational knowledges
(specialised)
Different forms of educational
knowledge in a curriculum
Selecting content knowledge
Stronger Framing
(+F)
-control over
Sequencing and pacing the teaching of
content knowledge
Making evaluative criteria explicit
Regulating the teacher’s conduct in
pedagogical relationship
Specialist curriculum knowledge
(including academic development) is
emphasised in the design and approval
of courses (as opposed to general
experience of teaching in HE)
Discipline knowledge is downplayed as
the basis for knowledge in the
curriculum (as opposed to those
genericised forms specified externally)
Curriculum content knowledge is
determined by the syllabus
(documented forms) (as opposed to
being selected by the teacher ad hoc)
The organisation and structure of the
curriculum is set by the institution
rather than the teacher
The form and focus of assessment is
controlled by the institution rather than
the teacher
The teacher’s conduct is regulated by
the institution via a hierarchy (authority
for approving courses resides in
institution)

14. Classification (C)
Concept manifested
– Strength of
Indicators
boundaries between
Example quotes
from empirical data
Framing (F)
Concept manifested –
Degree of teacher
control in:
selecting content
knowledge
‘It wasn’t until I had
to write my
validation document
that I realised that
module documents
really meant
anything’
‘What has become
apparent over time is
how crucial an
understanding of
these concepts is to
how students learn’
sequencing and pacing
the teaching of content
knowledge
+C Knowledge
gained in
developing one’s
own subject
content is of little
relevance in
approving the
subject content of
others
‘It doesn’t help when
someone who
specialises in astrophysics is telling you
what to do in a
subject they know
nothing about’
making evaluative
criteria explicit
-C Knowledge
gained in
developing one’s
own subject
content is highly
relevant to
approving the
subject content of
others
Different forms of
educational
knowledge in a
curriculum
+C General
experience of
teaching in higher
education is little
valued in the
course approval
context
-C General
experience of
teaching in higher
education is highly
valued in the
course approval
context
Everyday and
educational
knowledges
(specialised)
‘I feel that having led
the development of
my own courses and
being part of a
number of
revalidation panels
that I am able to
spot the weaknesses,
and advise others’
regulating the teacher’s
conduct in pedagogical
relationship
Note: +/- indicates ‘stronger/weaker’
Indicators
Example quotes from empirical
data
+F Content knowledge is
‘Students should be able to have a
determined mainly by the syllabus clear understanding of what is
(documented forms).
going to be taught, and this should
be based on the whim or research
hobby of the teacher’
-F Teachers are able to select
‘we had developed a set of lectures
content for themselves
given by well known names and
this was filmed and played to the
students each year’
+F Elements of the curriculum are ‘Developing students who are
mandated by the institution
employable is a key driver for this
university. It makes sense to have
work-related and work-based
learning activities in key modules’
-F The sequencing and/or pacing ‘I guess there are lots of ways to
of learning is mainly determined
do it [employability] and lots of
by the teacher
ways that students can bring it
into their assignments. It’s more of
a theme than content itself’
+F The institution makes
‘It’s very clear that students are
evaluative criteria clear and
being over-assessed and that for
explicit to teachers
some students it is all essay, essay,
essay ....’
-F Evaluative criteria are open‘I need to make sure that students
ended and interpreted by teachers really engage with the module so I
include a work diary as a extra
element that they have to hand in.
That way I know they’ve done it’
+F A strong hierarchy is
‘What we want to do is make the
maintained between institution
expectations of [tutor] contact
and teacher
time clearer to students. And this
needs to be a number of hours at
specified times’
-F A weak hierarchy exists
‘it’s a joint partnership [between
between institution and teacher
the teacher and the university] ...
you know, the people that I work
with are professional adult
educators so I learn from them,
they learn from me.’

15. Manifestation of positional and relational autonomy
of course design and approval
Theoretical
concept
Degree of emphasis on:
Curriculum
Stronger
Positional
Autonomy
(PA+)
Pedagogy
Assessment
Curriculum
Stronger
Relational
Autonomy
(RA+)
Pedagogy
Assessment
Teacher determines the basis for forms of content
knowledge
Teaching of content knowledge based on established
‘repertoire’ (habitus) (rather than new practice)
Evaluative criteria aligned with teachers’ (rather than the
institution’s or external) needs
Discipline is the basis for forms of content knowledge
(rather than educational policy)
Teaching of content knowledge based on disciplinary
pedagogic (rather than economic or other factors’) needs
Evaluative criteria aligned to meet disciplinary pedagogical
(as opposed to external factors such as economy) needs

16. POSITIONAL AUTONOMY (PA)
Concept Manifested –
Indicators
Emphasis on:
Curriculum
RELATIONAL AUTONOMY (RA)
Concept Manifested – Indicators
Emphasis on:
Teacher determines the
basis for forms of
content knowledge
Discipline is the basis
for forms of content
knowledge
Example quotes from
empirical data in this
study
PA+ Discipline emphasised as ‘there were essential
determining form of
topics that we knew we
legitimate educational
had to cover, and
knowledge
we’ve included these
for a number of years’
PA- Discipline downplayed as
less important in defining
legitimate educational
knowledge
Pedagogy
Teaching of content
knowledge based on
teacher’s repertoire /
habitus
‘there are areas of the
curriculum that all
courses must cover,
regardless of whether
students become
lawyers, or social
workers’
PA+ Established techniques
and strategies for teaching
content knowledge
emphasised as determining
form of pedagogy
‘we had developed a
set of lectures given by
well known names and
this was filmed and
played to the students
each year’
‘ it’s what works and is
effective rather than
any particular
pedagogic model’
PA- Established techniques
and strategies for teaching
content knowledge
downplayed as significantly
shaping form of pedagogy
Assessment
PA+ Evaluation of legitimacy
of student performances
resides in beliefs of individual
teachers
‘exams are the only
real way that you can
test whether the
students have learnt
anything’
PA- Student performances
are judged against shared
criteria external to the
teacher
Evaluative criteria
aligned with the needs
of teachers
‘written assignments
are better assessed
blind-marked, so that
you don’t know
anything about the
student ...’
NOTE: +/- indicates ‘stronger’ / ‘weaker’
RA+ Discipline
emphasised as
determining form of
legitimate educational
knowledge
RA- External factors
(such as economy)
emphasised as
determining form of
legitimate educational
knowledge
Example quotes from
empirical data in this
study
‘the main thing was
that you mentioned
something about
employability in the
course design but no
one ever really teaches
it ...’
‘it is important that the
quality of course
content is assured,
without that students
will not choose us ’
Evaluative criteria
aligned to meet
disciplinary
pedagogical principles
RA+ disciplinary
pedagogical needs are
emphasised as
significantly shaping
form of pedagogy
‘we knew we had to
cover essential things
like employability but
we had no idea how
these were taught’
RA- Economic and
other factors are
explicitly emphasised
as determining form of
pedagogy
Teaching of content
knowledge based on
disciplinary pedagogic
principles
‘it’s in work related
learning, and work
placement that
students feel they get
relevant learning and
it’s what they enjoy’
RA+ Explicit and
specific evaluative and
procedural criteria are
emphasised in judging
student performances
‘when the student
hands in work for
assessment they need
to know who to give it
to and when it will be
marked and returned’
‘the problem with
giving students timely
feedback is that all
they care about is the
mark, not what they
could do better next
time’
RA- Explicit and
specific evaluative and
procedural criteria are
downplayed as not
significant in judging
student performances

17. Vignettes chosen to represent key themes and
significant moments in the study
Story
Author
Group
The string bag
Angela
A: Sharers
Chap Possible themes /metaphors
ter
5.2.5 Embodying practice/text
The living gateway
David
B: Cascaders
5.3.3 Translating practice/text
The reversible coat
Cathy
D: Approval seekers 6.2.5 Recontextualising practice/text
The magic sentence
Susan
E: Approvers
The forgotten map
Alison
D: Approval seekers 7.3.4 Remembering practice/text
The divining rod
Rhianna E: Approvers
6.4.3 Regulating practice/text
7.4.4 Foretelling practice/text

18. Typology of field positions and orientations for the
course design and approval process
Factor
Collegial focus
Bureaucratic focus
Consensus seeking focus
Curriculum design
Coherence
Heuristic modelling
Evaluative
Contextual
Autonomy
PA+ / RAPA- / RACode clash
Knowledge
ER+ / SRER- / SR+
Code clash
specialisation
(knowledge code)
(knower code)
Semantic variation
SG+ / SDSG- / SD+
Code clash
Pedagogical design
Pedagogical model Competence
Performance
Performance-based
Pedagogic code
Collection
Integrated
Mixed
Pedagogic identity
Therapeutic
De-centred market
Schizoid
Evaluation (basis and criteria of establishing the worth of the curriculum)
Exchange
Pedagogic ‘goods’
Marketable ‘goods’ Approved ‘goods’
Peer Review
Horizontal
Hierarchical
Mixed
Authority
Collegial
Bureaucratic
Rules-based
Decision making
Collaborative
Co-operative
Discretionary
Expertise
Mutual and reciprocal
Disciplinary
Technical
Collegial
Predominantly
Intermediate
Variable
organisation
collegiate
collegiate

19. Semantic codes for knowledge in the
curriculum
Shay 2012, based on Maton, 2011: 66
19

20. Projections of the Approval Event
Lived curriculum
Time
Intended
curriculum
Pre-approval
Course
Approval
Post-approval
A
B
C
Enacted
curriculum
Phase 3: APE
Phase 2: Single Institution Case Study
APE = Approval Panel Event
Focal Points (A = final approval, B = delivery, C = review)

21. The effects of quality
Institution
Collegiality
Bureaucracy
QA
QE
Individualism
Compliance
Individual

22. A typology of transformation
Transform +
Closed
New and shared
Transfer -
Transfer +
Morphostasis
Replicated
Transform -

23. A schema for curriculum authority
Coherence based on evaluation
Idealised
curriculum
Authority
Coherence based on modelling
Expertise
Autonomy
Consensus

24. Mapping of the findings
1
2
PRACTICE
Pre-approval
PA+/RA-
3
Post-approval
PA-/RA-
PA+/RA-
4
External language
of description
Case Study ]
Lived curriculum
Autonomy
Intended
curriculum
[ Phase 1: Cross-institution
Time
A
Course
Approval
B
C
Enacted
curriculum
5
Phase 3: APE
Phase 2: Single Institution Case Study
Doc
packing up
SGSD
unpacking
SG SD
Doc
Documentation
6
Semantics
Doc
7
Approval
Curricula
Specialisation
Applied theory
ER-/SR+
ER-/SR+
ER-/SR+
Q4 (SG-/SD+)
Professional
ER+/SR+
ER-/SR+
ER+/SR+
Q3 (SG+/SD+)
Practical
ER-/SR+
ER-/SR+
ER-/SR+
Q2 (SG+/SD-)
OR-/DR+
PRODUCTION
SubR-/IR+
RECONTEXTUALISATION
8
REPRODUCTION

25. Dynamic coherence model of curriculum enactment
POWER
Institution
(UAP)
Material /
Technical
CONTROL
Evaluation
(contextual)
Approval Event
Final approval
A
Delivery
B
Review
C
Curriculum Knowledge
(C / F)
Boundaries
Control
 Specialised
 Discipline
VISIBLE
 Curriculum
 Pedagogy
 Assessment
External language of description
Stasis
Discipline /
Individual
Moral /
Pedagogic
Modelling
(conceptual)
Iteration
E
Purpose
D
Experiment
F
INVISIBLE
(Re-)Design
CERTAIN
UNCERTAIN