Reengineering Higher Education for Capability

REENGINEERING HIGHER EDUCATION FOR CAPABILITY

Reengineering higher education

A.J. BRIDGE

School of the Built Environment

Nene College of Higher Education, Northampton, UK.

Abstract

The majority of recent changes in United Kingdom higher education institutions seem to have related more to the issue of accommodating increases in students numbers, rather than addressing the needs of graduates in the workplace. In particular, the merits modularisation appear to be severely undermined when consideration is given to the appropriateness of a capability philosophy and approach in educational programmes. Revolutionary and not evolutionary change is therefore required if such a philosophy is to be achieved without cost being prohibited. Information technology and virtual reality raises the propsects of major structural change designed to facilitate comprehensive improvement in higher education delivery. However, the particular incremental development with respect to capability, required by undergraduates significantly reduces the value of a virtualised capability approach. Business process reengineering seems to offer the framework within which the potential of information technology may be harnessed to facilitate the development of real capability at undergraduate level, together with dramatic improvements in flexibility, assessable and cost.

Keywords: Reengineering, capability, information technology, teaching, assessment.

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Developments in general business strategy

The explosion of global competition is having a profound effect on many businesses, not least higher education.

Popular paradigms of business strategy have been modelled around organisations either concentrating on differentiating their product or achieving efficiency gains as a means to achieving competitive advantage [1]. The principal drivers of business activity have now, however, disrupted the relatively stable operating environment. In particular, a rich cocktail comprising, intense competition, higher levels of consumer expectation and increasingly transparent and accessible technology is acting to fuel a climate of accelerating change.

Contemporary business strategy is now more likely to see organisations continually strive to differentiate their product or service in terms of perceived quality, but as this is unlikely to be sustainable, mainly due to the pace with which technology curves are flattening out, organisations are, seemingly, now also expected to compete on cost and time criteria. As organisations are now competing across the entire range of key success factors [2] they may be less able to compete across a broad range of market segments and are therefore likely to concentrate on core competencies [3], by focusing on a narrow target of market segments.

1.2 Impact on higher education

In the United Kingdom (UK) the traditional model of higher education (HE) developed within the context of a relatively stable environment, to differentiate itself from its competitors in terms of high standards or quality, and as such created a reputation for being one of the best systems in the world. This approach to HE remained desirable so long as the operating environment remained stable. Since, if judged on cost and time criteria this Žlite system might not be seen to be wholly successful and is illustrated by the fact that, up until fairly recent times, only one young adult in 17 entered HE [4].

The climate of accelerating change being experienced by businesses has clearly had implications for the job market and as such has a natural impact on the HE environment. Indeed, Cadbury [5] noted; " The traditional graduate job has been replaced by a graduate career spent contributing to the success of a dozen firms rather than just one or two". These environmental changes in HE increasingly call into question the fundamental educational philosophy that constituted the high standards which had heavily contributed to traditional UK HE institutions developing their international reputation. Previously, a degree may have represented a job ticket. However, it would now appear that a philosophy which seeks to enshrine scholarship and excellence in the pursuit of knowledge, epitomised by the liberal education received by students in the traditional UK HE institutions, is not entirely appropriate in a working environment which demands high level skills to manage uncertainty.

Furthermore, the commitment to mass HE in the UK is having at least as important an impact on HE institutions as the philosophical debate. In particular, implementational issues are uppermost in Vice Chancellors' minds and these essentially amount to how institutions are going to accommodate higher numbers of students and to what extent unit funding is going to change in order to prevent compromising the quality of HE provision.

2.0 Recent responses in higher education

2.1 Structural Changes

The majority of recent changes in UK HE institutions seem to have related to the issue of accommodating increasing numbers, rather than addressing the needs of graduates in the workplace.

UK institutions have sought to rapidly evolve the traditional campus based and course based model of HE provision to suit higher numbers of students and greater demands for flexibility, in terms of choice and access. Much energy in these institutions has, therefore, gone into the development of modular programmes of study and semestarisation. With respect to flexibility, however, it is questionable whether modular programmes do in fact provide greater choice and access. Indeed, Robertson [6] indicates that the principles of student choice , credit accumulation and access into HE are heavily canvassed but they are independent of any modular system. Adding to this Rance [7] notes that; "evidence of this independence can be gleaned from the observation that many modular systems do not promote choice, rather they may be predicted on a different assumption like commonality". From the viewpoint of suitability to high numbers, modularity follows the general principles of the division of labour advocated by Smith [8]. In this sense the curriculum becomes fragmented as the curriculum is divided into academic units or modules. These modules are definitively designed with detailed content, learning objectives, and teaching and learning and assessment methods. As advocated by Smith [8] this kind of fragmented system then lends itself to mass production with the control over learning passing from students and lecturers to academic mangers. Finally, in respect of semesterisation, it is argued that this development simply amounts to a way of organising the academic timetable. There is, in fact, a danger that semesterisation actually reduces student choice. With formal assessment occurring at the end of each semester there is less opportunity for interim non-contributory assessment and the greater danger of student failure leads to a tendency to further increase the rigidity of the curriculum and extensively employ assessment methods which test knowledge acquisition and not so much the application of knowledge.

In particular, therefore, modularised programmes in traditional campus based HE institutions represent an efficient mechanism to adapt the traditional UK HE approach to increasing numbers of students in terms of facilitating higher staff to student ratios without a commensurate increase in unit funding. Crucially, however, whether modularisation is able to realise absolute savings is debatable as reduced staff contact time is replaced with enhanced assessment and administration tasks [9].

2.2 Review of HE

The preceding analyses gives a strong impression the recent attempts to adapt the traditional campus based institutions to changing demands in the workplace, higher numbers and pressure on funding, by relying heavily on the mechanism of modularisation is very much like trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole.

Such an impression would create a much stronger external focus for the rationale behind the current inquiry, to be chaired by Sir Ron Dearing, into the future of HE in the UK, as opposed to the Government's stated need to take stock of HE and consider its future [4].Specifically, the inquiry has been asked to make recommendations on how the shape, structure, size and funding of HE should develop over the next 20 years. The full details of the inquiry's terms of reference have been well reported, however, of particular interest is that the government has stressed that, within funding constraints, the committee should have regard to [10];

¥maximum participation;

¥student choice;

¥maintenance and assurance of standards;

¥enhancement of quality and relevance of teaching and learning to employer needs.

Given the limited extent to which the traditional course within the traditional campus based model has evolved and thus fallen short of meeting the changes in educational demands and increased student numbers, it is clear that a radical overhaul of the current HE system, both in terms of educational philosophies and structural implementation is required. Revolutionary and not evolutionary change is therefore needed in HE if it is to achieve the kind of principles identified in the current inquiry, without cost being prohibitive.

3.0 Capability Philosophy

3.1 Need and definition

The likely increasingly turbulent career faced by graduates emphasises the need for educational programmes to equip graduates with not only the skills of knowledge acquisition and analyses but also the skills to manage change and uncertainty. This is, in fact, the essential message behind the Higher Education For Capability (HEC) movement, an independent national initiative based at Leeds Metropolitan University and the University of Leeds. Specifically, Stephenson [11] suggests that, individuals, industry and society will all benefit from a well balanced education that comprises not only the acquisition of knowledge and skills for academic excellence alone, but also in using and communicating knowledge, doing, making, designing, collaborating, organising and creating. He goes on to define capability as; " an all round human quality, an integration of knowledge, skills and personal qualities used effectively and appropriately in response to varied familiar and unfamiliar circumstances".

3.2 Applying a capability philosophy

Applying Stephenson's definition of capability the graduate would be able to operate effectively in all areas A , B , C, D as shown in figure 1 which is, in fact, indicative of an undergraduate course. Each of the areas is characterised by different levels of uncertainty, with areas A and B displaying the highest levels of uncertainty in terms of unfamiliar problems and unfamiliar circumstances.

3.2.1 Educational aims

These aims relate to the high level transferable skills that will, in terms of figure 1, underpin the graduates activities in all areas. It is likely, however, that the graduate will need to draw increasingly from these skills towards areas A and B, as the emphasis on the vocational knowledge base diminishes progressively through the course. These skills may be described with respect to excellence in terms of quality of independent thinking and expression [12].

3.2.2 Course specific aims

These aims relate to the development of the particular vocational core skills and knowledge base. In terms of figure 1 these aims are, therefore, particularly concerned with areas C and D.

3.2.3 Incremental development

At the undergraduate level Ashworth and Bridge [12] argue that the approach should be to incrementally develop the student's capability as shown in figure 2. This shows that the approach is to focus on the most appropriate components of capability, mindful of the student background and the changing nature of the student group.

In Level 1 the focus is on developing the students confidence and broad understanding of the contextual environment. In this sense the predominant skills that the student needs to acquire relate to understanding and a level of technical competence in order to be able to operate effectively in area D.

At Level 2 the emphasis is now on developing the students transferable skills and a deeper understanding of the knowledge base. This stage will therefore require the student to apply learned knowledge and display a level of professional judgement or professional competence in order to be able to operate effectively in area C .

At Level 3 the focus is on further developing the student's confidence and developing high level transferable skills. This final level will see the incidence of the now familiar knowledge base diminish considerably and will therefore require the student to exercise skills that relate to a high level of quality of thinking and expression, in order to successfully operate in area B and A.

3.2.4 The role of teaching , learning and assessment

The strategy to enable the student to develop the skills required to operate from area D up to area A is to require the student to embrace more responsibility for their learning in order to manage the increasing levels of uncertainty associated with the areas A, B, C, and D, as shown in figure 1.

In order for the student to accept more responsibility for their learning the course will involve the student in progressively higher levels of negotiation, collaboration and self-monitoring [11] .

This is, in turn, achieved by adopting the most appropriate teaching and learning strategy at each level of the course, which will facilitate the student in acquiring a level of learner responsibility in order to develop the skills necessary to effectively operate in each of areas A, B , C, and D, whose varying degrees of uncertainty is created by the use of alternative forms of assessment, as shown in figure 3.

3.2.5 Overview

The appropriateness of an incremental approach to capability at undergraduate level has much to do with being able to walk before the ability to run. Students at undergraduate level are likely to be living away from home for the first time, which in itself is an important part of developing capability, and therefore require a significant amount of support and encouragement from their HE tutors at this early and precarious stage of their time in HE.

Year 1 (Level 1)
/ Year 2 (Level 2)

Year 3 (Professional Placement)
/ Year 4 (Level 3)

.

Fig. 2. Incremental development of capability

(Source: Ashworth and Bridge, [12])

The situation in taught programmes at post graduate level, however, is not so precarious. Students at this level would be expected to have at least developed a reasonable degree of confidence and capability. They would therefore be expected to accept , from day 1, a very high level of responsibility in their studies as part of managing a course which displays a commensurate level of uncertainty, as a means to further enhancing their capability.

Year 1 (Level 1): Teaching and Learning Strategy and Element/Skills Match
/ Year 2 (Level 2): Teaching and Learning Strategy and Element/Skills Match

Year 4 (Level 4): Teaching and Learning Strategy and Element/Skills Match
/ Map of Assessment Related to Skills Progression
Associated with Varying Degrees of Uncertainty

(Source: Based on Stephenson's [11] Dependent and Independent Capability;Higher Education for Capability)

Fig. 3. Teaching, learning and assessment strategy in an incremental approach to capability.

Whilst the capability approach is likely to be successful in meeting the needs of employers and graduates, by equipping graduates with the ability to manage change and uncertainty in the work place, it is evident that the approach will place far greater demands on institutional resources than the traditional lecture and examination based model. In order for students to be able to apply knowledge, negotiate programmes of study and assessment, take part in collaborative learning, reflect on their work, monitor their own progress and ultimately take responsibility for their learning, courses need to become fluid and flexible with institutions relinquishing a large part of the control. An example of some of the resource implications created by a capability approach is described by Berman-Brown and McCartney [13] with reference to an MBA programme at Essex University: "Such an approach is a heavy challenge to those who tutor on the MBA. It is not only the students who can be rendered uncomfortable with and unsure of the capability approach..... In a sense, all of those who teach on the MBA have had to address the issues of our own identity and role, the mastery of unfamiliar approaches and techniques, and, with more difficulty, have had to learn how to relinquish ownership of the learning and to transfer it to our students. After all, becoming a facilitator of another's learning is more anxiety-producing than carrying on as a subject-expert who hands out knowledge which is intended to be passively received and unquestionably reproduced".

The holistic and flexible nature of capability based courses, controlled to a large extent by their students therefore represent a far cry from the large number of highly fragmented and rigid modular programmes controlled by academic managers that currently exist in many HE institutions in the UK.

Given the existing traditional campus-based HE institution and funding constraints modularisation was seen to be an efficient way of dealing with mass education. If UK HE institutions are to subsequently commit themselves to an extensive and true capability philosophy, then clearly the current HE system would need to undertake a significant structural, as well as cultural change, assuming that funding continues to be a major issue.

4.0 The virtual institution and virtual capability

4.1 Major opportunities at post graduate level

Clearly modern technology holds enormous potential to enable radical structural change in HE. Hutchinson [14] believes; "a have laptop, will travel culture will bring the university to the learner, wherever he or she happens to be ". An important corollary of this new approach to HE would undoubtedly be significant efficiency gains. These developments might therefore be seen as a solution to delivering a capability philosophy under increasing funding pressures.

Indeed, the Open University of Catalonia (UOC), already exists as a working example of the virtual university with virtual classrooms, libraries, student services and bars. It uses communications technology to deliver degrees at a distance throughout the north-eastern region of Spain and expects in excess of 11,000 students by the year 2000 [15]. Warden [15] reports the views of the UOC's vice rector who believes; "the increasing diversity for education means the virtual campus is the model for the future. Developed societies are moving further from the traditional model whereby people complete their education early on and then dedicate themselves solely to work. Initiatives such as distance learning building around new technology offer one way of meeting the need for a more flexible system, allowing people to dip in and out of education and periodically update their knowledge".