Year-on-year more is being asked of education at every level and higher education is no exception. The recently published EUA ‘TRENDS 2024’ highlights this move noting that contemporary universities need to ‘embrace multiple missions’ thus raising questions on ‘strategy, priority-setting and resources’ (Gaebel and Zhang, 2024, p. 36). The curriculum or education experience, broadly understood, offers institutions an organising structure within which values can be expressed, educational priorities enacted and educational outcomes achieved. In practical terms, as Tight suggests, the curriculum in higher education ‘links the details of course design with the student experience of entering, moving through and transitioning beyond higher education’ and ‘offers a broader, and potentially more integrated, perspective on the teaching/learning function of higher education’ (2024, p. 324). Clarifying through an agreed framework what we mean by curriculum or the education experience, provides a coherent foundation for institution-wide development, enhancement and leadership (Fung, 2017). 

This session, which is organised in two parts, presents learning from the shared experience of colleagues from one institution engaged in developing an education framework, and members of an expert external panel advising on that framework development. This collaborative aspect of an institutional, government funded, enhancement initiative involved colleagues from five different European university settings and evolved into an opportunity for all to reflect on framework development and enactment more broadly. 

In Part 1, we present an aspect of the answer to the practical question ‘how do you build an education framework’. This was the overarching question we considered together in a series of conversations which took place over approximately 12 months where we explored topics such as: the process of developing an education framework – the who, what, when, how, why; the nuts and bolts of a framework - agreeing framework elements such as priorities, hallmarks, principles etc.; navigating challenges and setbacks; changes you would make and what you wish you had known then that you know now. Our shared conversations benefitted particularly from the range of experience across the group where each of us from an institutional perspective was a different stage of development and/or enactment of our framework. The conversations were elucidated by a comprehensive literature review of the recent scholarship in this area (Ramputh, Farrell and O’Regan, 2025), a review of existing frameworks, a review of context, and ongoing work on campus with an Advisory Group and Student Ambassadors by the organising institution. 

In Part 2, we present our discussions as a group in answer to the question ‘how do you accomplish change through the co-creation and enactment of curriculum and education frameworks’. In order to address this second question, we are using Trowler’s work on accomplishing change in teaching and learning regimes. In this regard we are particularly drawing on the idea of a ‘practice sensibility’ or ‘practice-focused perspective’ and how it might be used as a way of seeing ‘three key elements of any change process … [namely] context of change … the nature of any proposed innovation … [and] the relationship between context and innovation’ (Trowler, 2019, p. 121). Specific topics we are considering together include: entering into dialogue and feedback about the framework principles; developing supports for framework enactment; encouraging flexible and various ways of integrating the framework into disciplines and interdisciplinary work in line with a non-prescriptive approach; surfacing resource and other challenges associated with making the framework a reality. 

While the research dimension of this work has evolved from its inception, the overarching approach is the use of three of Brookfield’s four lenses of critical reflection, namely, colleagues’ perceptions, personal experience and theory/scholarship. Designed for examining teaching practice, we have found Brookfield’s approach beneficial as ‘a process of intentional and continual scrutiny of … assumptions’ in our iterative work on framework development and enactment particularly where there is a focus on the possibilities for change (Brookfield, 2017, p. 19). Attempting to explain these lenses as entirely distinct belies their inextricable nature where personal and colleagues’ perceptions were influenced by their knowledge of theory and scholarship, and personal perceptions were discussed with colleagues’ perceptions helping to clarify both. Thus, the approach involves ongoing interaction between the three lenses which optimises the fact that reflection ‘is best practiced as a collective endeavour, a collaborative process in which people gather to ferret out assumptions, challenge groupthink and consider multiple perspectives’ (2017, p. 115). In turn, this reflective methodology suited the evolving, participatory nature of curriculum development, where leadership, learning and institutional context dynamically shape one another. Practically the work involved: • a series of online one-to-one conversations (n=12 at date of proposal submission) on agreed topics, the notes of which were analysed to produce digests which captured shared themes and advice. In addition, colleagues met together, for an all day in-person workshop to deepen dialogue, build relational trust and explore the diversity of institutional experiences regarding education framework development • regular documented meetings by the framework developing institution team (approximately every 2-3 weeks since October 2024) to discuss the process of framework development and to reflect on the framework development • the development of Open Education Resources based on analysis of context and other frameworks • comprehensive literature review The next stages of the research dimension of the work will involve data-gathering through • a further series of one-to-one conversations (n=4) and an additional 1-day in-person workshop • weekly journaling regarding the refinement of the framework and the experience of making the steps towards enactment • continued engagement with the scholarship particularly around curriculum development approaches. We will use the Trowler concepts to explore the data in order to address the question of how do you accomplish change through the co-creation and enactment of curriculum and education frameworks.

Part 1 findings using the aforementioned approach include the importance of: • clarifying and communicating the purpose of the framework and what it can and cannot do; allowing for the framework to be actionable and aspirational • building on existing good practice, optimising the expertise within the community and being informed by the relevant scholarship • adopting a co-creative (students and staff) cross-disciplinary approach throughout • focusing on a developing a simple, pragmatic output which influences both processes and practice, is non-prescriptive and allows for situated enactment • anticipating the strategies, systems, processes and resourcing within which the framework will operate • achieving the support of senior leaders • planning for implementation and evaluation as part of design stage • living and reinforcing the trustworthiness of the development process including through ongoing two-way communication • expecting that there will be roadblocks and remembering to take time to pause and reflect. These findings highlight the value of a developmental and dialogic approach, rooted in critical reflection and shared ownership. Findings from Part 2 will be presented at the conference however based on the literature considered to date regarding how change is accomplished through the co-creation of education/curriculum frameworks it is anticipated that the following will feature: • The role of relational trust and inclusive dialogue in enabling change (Advance HE, 2025; Gano & Oxendine, 2023; Healey & Healey, 2024) • The importance of flexibility in enactment to account for local context (Evans, 2024; Osika et al., 2025; Ryan et al. 2020; Sahni et al., 2025) • The challenges of aligning strategic aspirations with disciplinary practices (Davies & Fung, 2018; Fung, 2017; Nugent et al., 2019) • The need for ongoing engagement, iteration and evaluation to sustain momentum (Kidman et al., 2019; Yang, 2015)

Advance HE. (2025) Framework for leading in higher education [online]. Available at: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/ Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. 2nd ed. London, England: Jossey-Bass. Evans, C. (2024) Shaping society for tomorrow: the role of higher education in bringing about positive change. In: Wood, L. and Zuber-Skerritt, O., eds. (2024) Shaping the future of higher education: positive and sustainable frameworks for navigating constant change. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 25–44. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.21154984.9?seq=1 Fung, D. (2017) A Connected Curriculum for Higher Education. London: UCL Press. Gaebel, M. and Zhang, T. (2024). TRENDS 2024. European higher education institutions in times of transition. Brussels: European University Association. Available at: https://www.eua.eu/publications/reports/trends-2024.html Gano, B.C. and Oxendine, S.D. (2023) ‘Being an appreciative educator in today’s world: unknowingly and knowingly using appreciative frameworks in higher education’, New Directions for Student Services [online], 2023(184), 11–17. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20489 Healey, M. and Healey, R.L. (2024) ‘The role of academic developers in initiating, developing and supporting student–staff partnerships in learning and teaching in higher education: a systematic narrative literature review and a new framework’, International Journal for Academic Development [online]. Available at:https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2024.2338487 Kidman, G., Chang, C.-H. and Wi, A. (2019) Defining education for sustainability (EfS): a theoretical framework. In: Chang, C.-H., Kidman, G. and Wi, A., eds. (2019) Issues in teaching and learning of education for sustainability: theory into practice [online]. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Group. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nuim/detail.action?docID=5904711 Nugent, A., Lodge, J.M., Carroll, A., Bagraith, R., MacMahon, S., Matthews, K.E. and Sah, P. (2019). Higher education learning framework: an evidence-informed model for university learning [online]. Brisbane: The University of Queensland. Available at:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328943978_Higher_Education_Learning_Framework_An_evidence-informed_model_for_university_learning Ramputh, T., Farrell, A. and O’Regan L. (2025). Enhancing Teaching, Learning and Curriculum Design through Education Frameworks: Literature Review. Maynooth: Maynooth University. Ryan, B., Fleming, A., Deegan, C.M., McAvinia, C., O’Kane, C., Williams, D., Nevin, E., Bates, E., Darby, F., Harvey, J., Murphy, L., Coleman, M., O’Donoghue, M. and Duffy, N. (2020). CoCREATE: collaborative curriculum reimagining and enhancement aiming to transform education [online]. Dublin: Technological University Dublin. Available at: https://arrow.tudublin.ie/totalarcreptf/1 Tight, M. (2024). ‘The curriculum in higher education research: A review of the research literature’, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61:2, 315-328, DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2023.2166560 Trowler. P. (2019). Accomplishing Change in Teaching and Learning Regimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yang, M. (2015). ‘Promoting self-sustained learning in higher education: the ISEE framework.’, Teaching in Higher Education, 20(6), 601–613. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13562517.2015.1052785