One approach to development in higher education adopted in the UK since 2000, has been to set-up a network of twenty-four specialist Subject Centres forming part of a national organisation, the Higher Education Academy. This paper focuses on work undertaken by one of these Subject Centres, namely the UK Centre for Materials Education (UKCME); its aim to enhance the student learning experience in higher education. More particularly, it considers a major strategy of the Centre – the Supported Change Programme – which has evolved over the past two years. The introduction of this approach was also heavily influenced by evidence from a detailed external evaluation, which made explicit both the barriers to change faced by practitioners in Departments, and revealed the limitations of some of the Centre strategies that had previously been adopted. Based on this evidence, UKCME became convinced that the way forward for development lay in working alongside academic Departments. The reasons for this, and further justification located in the literature, will be considered in this paper. To date, this Supported Change Programme has been implemented in five higher education institutions, across a variety of contexts, including a HE/FE College, an ex-polytechnic and three research-led universities. In each case, the Departmental concern was to shift emphasis from a major focus on teaching to a focus on enhancing student learning. This paper will describe the approaches that have evolved across all of the participating Departments. In particular, it concentrates on practices associated with developments in an academic School in one of the research-led institutions, as a case study. Here, previous attempts to bring about change in the academic School had failed, and developments had been further exacerbated by organisational constraints involving a recent merger of two Departments. A critical feature of the approach adopted in the selected case study institution, subsequently repeated in other contexts, was to draw from an ‘ethnographic methodology’ to involve the whole Department in the development process. This was initiated by holding in-depth interviews with each colleague to explore current practice and to identify possible ways forward. Crucial to this, was that the succeeding analysis of the evidence was shared with the group.

It became clear that while more traditional approaches to development offered by UKCME through training events, workshops, etc had been very positively received by participants, later evaluation revealed that actual impact on practice had been patchy (Taylor, 2003; Taylor and Ball, 2003). Consequently, a decision was made by UKCME to focus on the Department as the ‘engine for change’. Initial explorations across the national discipline-based community identified five Departments, which were deemed suitable to initiate a Supported Change Programme (Taylor and Mannis, 2006a). Subsequently, a strategy for change has evolved (Taylor and Mannis, 2006b). There is a considerable literature which would support this switch of emphasis made by UKCME in 2006. The limitation of a centrist approach to development is well documented, and the importance has been argued of paying attention to subject-specific ‘elements’ (Dadds, 1997; McAlpine and Harris, 1999; Hubball and Poole, 2003). The need has also been identified to work alongside Faculty staff involved in the change, with the Department as the locus of development (Parlett, 1977; Parlett and Hamilton, 1977). A number of authors have focused on the process of change, and identified both the stages through which this occurs (Connolly and James, 1998) and also the implications for those involved in the change (Leat et al, 2006). Fielding (2004) emphasises the need to build collegiality, so empowering individuals to become part of the development process. The particular initiative featured in this paper focuses on developments made by a School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (a merger of two Departments) to incorporate aspects of active learning and team working, based on a series of projects undertaken by students throughout Year 1 of undergraduate study. Previous attempts to initiate this had failed. An illuminative approach was adopted by UKCME – an approach of widespread applicability (Stockhausen and Kawashima, 2003). This sought to involve all relevant colleagues directly in the development process, by holding a series of in-depth interviews with each colleague, and by sharing subsequent analysis of the evidence with the group. Findings from the interviews formed the platform upon which development was successfully implemented (McCartan et al, 2007). A strong endorsement of this interview approach is provided by Gudmundsdotter (1996), acknowledging this to be a method for understanding and interpreting professional practice and experience. However, Gudmundsdotter (1996) also warns of pitfalls: relating to developers’ interpretation and subsequent reporting. This establishes the importance of UKCME’s practice of feeding back findings to the group to ascertain their authenticity. Certainly, the initiative in the case study School has proved successful, and the approach will now be extended to inform development in Year 2 of undergraduate programmes. However, the authors are not complacent. Effectively, the process has shifted from ‘development at the Centre’ to feature interpretation of evidence which is undertaken by ‘outsiders’. Could a methodology be evolved within the Supported Change Programme, perhaps incorporating new technology, which will shift responsibility for such interpretation on to the shoulders of colleagues? (Walker, 1999 and 2004). This would therefore serve to empower further those responsible for development.

This paper will identify the benefits of the Supported Change Programme approach and the positive outcomes which accrued; but will also consider some of the limitations, drawing here on the relevant literature. In addition, the selected academic School (as case study in this paper) has drawn from practices evolved in a number of other European universities, this through the regional network of the international CDIO initiative pioneered by MIT in the USA. The authors will also share findings in this paper as to how collaboration and exchange of practice between this UK university and a cluster of European higher education institutions have also informed developments.