Case Study 1 - Diploma Redevelopment

CASE STUDY 1: Diploma Redevelopment

The aim of this project was to revamp Elim Ministry Training College’s (EMTC) level 5 Diploma internship and submit a category 2 change application to NZQA, to enable online delivery of the Diploma programme.

Background

EMTC offered 3 programmes in 2013:

Level 4 online internship (for those in Elim churches outside Auckland) – introduced 2013
Level 4 onsite academic programme
Level 5 onsite Diploma (internship) – with a prerequisite of completion of the level 4 onsite programme

While EMTC’s level 4 ONSITE graduates could move directly into the level 5 Diploma programme, our level 4 ONLINE interns could not as

They had not completed the full prerequisite of the onsite level 4 programme due to the internship component.
Deficiencies in the level 5 Diploma meant that it would not be a step up for our level 4 interns.

During August/September 2014 I was tasked with revamping the level 5 Diploma to address deficiencies and make it available as a pathway for our level 4 online interns to move forward, and complete a category 2 change application for NZQA.

[Note: I lecture in the level 4 onsite programme, was the Dean of Interns for the level 5 Diploma programme for 18 months during 2012/2013, and developed the level 4 online programme from scratch during 2012. I am therefore well acquainted with all of EMTC’s programmes and the internship programmes in particular.]

Beginning the project

At the beginning of the project I could see a number of issues would need to be addressed, but at this point I did not realise the extent of what I would arise. Issues to be attended to included:

Navigating the change towards being more learner-centred. The more I examined this issue the more I realised this would actually require adjusting the educational philosophy of EMTC, particularly the onsite programmes which are heavily teacher-centred.
Navigating the change to online as well as classroom learning. While several staff saw online learning as the way forward, the Onsite Principal and others felt as though Online was taking over their domain. This appears to stem from the above issue of a teacher-centred approach where the teacher at the front of the classroom dispenses the knowledge, and students are deemed to have learnt simply by being in class. Learners are therefore viewed as students rather than learners.
Navigating the change to a work-integrated learning model for the internship. This would include fully integrating theory and practice, and addressing issues regarding assessments as they are currently totally divorced from the lecture material.
Navigating the change to assessments from a very surface reflective “What do you think about…” to reflection being undergirded by the active learning cycle. The change to assessments also needed to include different types of assessments and more robust marking schedule as the bulk of both assessments and marking was very subjective.This will include formulating rubrics for marking.
Changing the learning outcomes from tasks to be completed to learning to be achieved.
Navigating the change to course resources to ensure there were no double-ups in material (a problem with the current programme as lecturers provide all their own material), that resources provided would be suitable for both onsite and online, and that all material is provided consistently at the right level.

Research conducted

I conducted research into different workplace learning models to see what would best suit EMTC’s internship programmes. NZQA require a clear rationale for any workplace learning and I set about formulating this. The one I chose was a work-integrating learning (WIL) model. As the bulk of the currently internship (80 of 120 credits) was in the workplace, this model enabled a holistic approach to learning that integrated both workplace and classroom experiences.

I also researched critical thinking, reflective practice, supervisor and mentor guidelines and best practice for workplace learning. This information was collated into several files for future reference.

I then began a close examination of the setup of the current level 5 Diploma programme and its history. This revealed further deficiencies and starkly highlighted the deficiencies I was already aware of. For example:

There was a complete disconnect between lectures and assessments. I was informed that when the Diploma was initiated in 2005, it was designed to be delivered in four different locations (Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin). Each location wanted their emphasis to the topics being taught, so standard assessments were formulated while topics actually being taught varied. Over time this disconnect became even more pronounced as topics and lecturers changed. The assessments, however, remained largely the same and were very reflective in nature.
In working through the required hours of the programme it became apparent that the 9 hrs per week that the students were required to be onsite left only approximately 2-3 hours per week for assessment activities. This was totally inadequate for the work required and I therefore suggested moving to having lectures only 4 hours of lectures per week.
While workplace supervisors and mentors were given guidelines at the beginning of the year, there was little requirement for EMTC to interact with these people, and sometimes EMTC had no idea who the mentors were. This is a major deficiency and will require a strong framework to be put into place.
There was an imbalance of assessments across the year. Of the 40 credits allocated to the theoretical components of the curriculum, only 10 credits were in Semester 1, with 30 credits in semester 2. This imbalance needed addressing.

Action taken and difficulties encountered

I suggested beginning with a top-down approach to programme development:

EMTC Mission (this would remain as it was)
EMTC Graduate Profile (non-existent)
Diploma Graduate Attributes (non-existent)
Course components (these would remain as they were)
Component learning outcomes (these would need to change from
tasks to outcomes)
Assessments (these would need to change)
Learning tasks (these would need to be formulated)
Major topics within each component (these would need to be
re-addressed to see which were most appropriate)

As no EMTC Graduate Profile existed, I formulated a proposed profile

based on EMTC’s Mission Statement “To train, equip and release people

for effective Christian leadership and ministry.” The Graduate Profile

essentially explained what “trained”, “equipped” and “released” Christian leaders and ministers could look like.

As part of the top-down approach I was also asked to be involved in meetings with the major stakeholder (Elim Christian Centre Auckland) and the four campus pastors. The Administration/ Academic Manager and I met individually with these four people asking them to describe the ideal EMTC graduate, and how EMTC could best benefit Elim Christian Centre as a whole. I summarised their observations, and this was subsequently emailed to the four pastors for comment. When this was put against the current EMTC vision and values, major discrepancies were seen. The stakeholders were wanting a heavy leadership emphasis, whereas the current EMTC vision and values followed a discipleship model which was very affective domain oriented.

At the same time, and independently, a Governance Board subcommittee was convened to examine EMTC’s direction and structure. I had already spoken with both the Administration/Academic Manager and Director regarding discrepancies between the stakeholder feedback and the current EMTC vision and values. This information was passed on to the subcommittee.

In the meantime, I decided the best approach to revamping the level 5 Diploma programme was to create what I called a “guinea pig” that would act as a starting point for discussion and collaboration with staff. The rationale behind this was that it was better to start with new ideas and a new approach (more learner-centred) than to try and “fix” the current programme. My aim was to begin to change some rather fixed mindsets, particularly the teacher-centred approach and validity of relying solely on reflective and subjective assessments.

A meeting was called with Administration/Academic Manager, Onsite Principal, Deputy Principal, and Dean of Interns. I outlined the problems I had found with the Diploma programme and presented the “guinea pig” for consideration. Numerous meetings and emails with the Onsite Principal followed as he suggested possible changes. Two major points of disagreement arose:

The Onsite Principal insisted that an affective domain learning outcome be included even though it wasn’t being assessed. He saw that the affective domain was a large part of why the College existed and therefore needed to be an explicit learning outcome. I argued that while the affective domain was important, as the assessments stood, it encompassed values to be instilled rather than a learning outcome to be assessed. We both worked on the wording of this proposed learning outcome and I altered two assessments to try and support the learning outcome (a compromise at best). While I was mindful of the stakeholder’s input, the Onsite Principal was holding to the current EMTC vision and values (which are affective-oriented) – even though he had also gained input previously from the stakeholders regarding incorporating more leadership-centred outcomes. It became apparent that work on the mission, vision and values was imperative and urgent.
The Principal was adamant that 8 hours per week of onsite lectures was required, with 4 hours per week allocated to self directed study and assessment activities. This is a 2:1 ratio. It was also 4 hours per week more than the allocated hours for the academic portion of the programme. My feeling was that lecturer input is not enough to show learning has occurred. Assessment activities encourage learners to interact and engage with the material being taught and begin to apply it in their context. Due to the Onsite Principal’s resoluteness on this ratio, I sought clarification from an ex-NZQA analyst as to the ratio question. While no general guideline existed, she said that it was expected that lower levels had more class time whereas higher levels would be expected to have more self-directed study. This is a level 5 programme. In my estimation our differences of opinion boiled down to a teacher-centred versus a more learner-centred approach to learning. I suggested that a compromise could be to have 4 lectures per week and with another 4 hours consisting of non-compulsory classroom time that could include assessment activities, group discussions and tutorials and be administered by the Dean of Interns.

Reflection

This whole process highlighted some major wider issues that would affect ongoing programme development and TRoQ (my major project for 2015):

The clash of stakeholder vision and direction with current EMTC vision and values. A new mission statement and overall EMTC Graduate Profile is currently being formulated.
The lack of a functioning Academic Board for feedback and to have the final say on programme components and issues. An interim Academic Committee was put into place to examine and approve the DACM programme redevelopment prior to submitting the category 2 change application to NZQA. A functioning Academic Board is planned to be in place during early 2015.
The parameters for collaboration with Principals and staff. In this instance I felt I was being coerced and manipulated into incorporating elements that clashed with both NZQA philosophy of learning and stakeholder direction. A change in EMTC organisational structure for 2015 will address collaboration issues by clearly delineating responsibilities.
An almost superior attitude by some EMTC staff regarding NZQA compliance that doesn’t appear to recognise the depth and breadth of thinking that needs to be put into programme development under TRoQ in order to bring coherency and alignment across EMTC. This is currently being addressed by the CEO by including all Leadership Team staff in the process.

While many of the issues highlighted here are ongoing, overall this project has been beneficial bringing a number of underlying issues have come to the fore. These include philosophical differences (e.g. student verses learner centred approach), directional conflict between the primary stakeholder and EMTC vision and values, and the need for clear lines of responsibility that will affect future programme development.

I have completed a lot of background reading, particularly with regard to work-placed learning models and best practice, curriculum mapping and thinking through the rationale required for each of these. Even though I disagreed with the Onsite Principal in a number of areas, both philosophically and practically, I have been able to maintain a good collaborative working relationship with him and the other staff involved.

Final Outcome

A category 2 Course Change Application was lodged with NZQA on 30 September 2014. This went straight through the pre-approval and approval process with NZQA with no questions asked and no further information required. Written notification of the approval was received in November (see below). This meant course creation and marketing of the redeveloped programme could continue.

Eighteen students are currently enrolled to attend the Orientation Block Course 9th-11th February 2015.

Graduate attributes met by this project

The following Graduate Attributes have been met by this project: 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

NZQA Approval for DACM.pdf