T HE U NIVERSITY OF Y ORK E-learning collaboration The experience of the eMasters programmes in Public Management Ellen Roberts and Jane Lund Department of Social Policy and Social Work

T HE U NIVERSITY OF Y ORK The focus of this session l Two types of collaboration 1.Developing modules: joint authoring across institutions internationally 2.Sharing modules between institutions internationally: a module-sharing agreement with Penn State University (PSU) l In relation to Social Policy and Social Work’s eMasters Programmes in Public Management

T HE U NIVERSITY OF Y ORK Objectives of the session l Describe these forms of collaboration l Discuss what happened in practice l Identify lessons learned: success factors, challenges and any lessons for the future

T HE U NIVERSITY OF Y ORK The programmes l Professional development programmes –Masters in Public Policy and Management –Masters of Public Administration –Masters in Policy, Management and Government l Wholly online l Recruit internationally –10 cohorts to date –Currently 200 students –40 + countries l The student profile – combining study with full time work – some without a first degree

T HE U NIVERSITY OF Y ORK Developing content – the modules l 21 modules l 11 units l 8 ‘topics’ l 1 unit = authored text, plus 2/3 readings and a group activity. l Additional reading l Assessment: 3000 word assignment

T HE U NIVERSITY OF Y ORK Pedagogical theory l Social constructivism (Piaget, Bruner, Vygotsky, 1978) l Situated learning/community of practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991) l Communal constructivism and networked learning (Holmes, 2001)

T HE U NIVERSITY OF Y ORK Meaning……… l Learning can be more meaningful when it’s part of a social activity l Learning can be more meaningful when it is applied l Learning can be enhanced by technologies that encourage reflection

T HE U NIVERSITY OF Y ORK Authoring process l Approach author/s l Describe programme context and learning outcomes l Agree development schedule l Write module specification* l Send to academic reviewer l Reviewer and editors’ feedback l Second draft l Second edit, including group activities l Technical build/copyright process

T HE U NIVERSITY OF Y ORK The role of collaboration in developing the modules l A number of modules were developed through collaboration with two WUN partner institutions, for example: –“Public Management and Delivery” : co-authored at Leeds and Penn State –“Globalisation and Social Policy”: co-authored at Sheffield and San Diego l The reasons for this approach –Pedagogical: to assist in developing internationally relevant material –Resources: to enable deadlines to be met for launching the programme - insufficient resource/ time/ motivation for all the modules to be developed within York

T HE U NIVERSITY OF Y ORK How the arrangement was set up l Module specification: the key document which provided a basis for initial discussion and an agreed plan l Authors paid in return for their work (instalments on agreement of the module specification, delivery of the first draft and of final draft) l Contract that allowed for the resulting work to be used by the other institution but not in competitive programmes

T HE U NIVERSITY OF Y ORK What happened in practice: example 1 Public Management and Delivery module: l Differences in academic outlook and quality between the two authors, which proved problematic and difficult to resolve l One author also failed to meet deadlines: severe delays l The other author (Penn State) eventually took the module development work over from the Leeds author at our request l Successful outcome but only after substantial challenges l The relationship with the Penn State author has been fruitful and positive (also involved in revising the module at its first review point)

T HE U NIVERSITY OF Y ORK What happened in practice: example 2 Globalisation and Social Policy module : l a very productive academic partnership l Complementary perspectives ( European and Pacific Rim respectively) l “The whole is greater than its parts”: an example where joint authoring yielded benefits that would have been difficult to achieve through just one institution

T HE U NIVERSITY OF Y ORK Lessons learned Collaboration of this kind depends on: l Incentives: the authors needed an incentive of some kind in order to engage in this work (demanding, time- consuming, a distraction from other work) l Compatible academic outlooks l Luck!

T HE U NIVERSITY OF Y ORK A module - sharing agreement with Penn State University (PSU) l Purpose, rationale and content l Outcomes to date l Lessons learned

T HE U NIVERSITY OF Y ORK Purpose An agreement to enable: l Students on our eMasters programmes to have the option of studying one specific module online at PSU (“Community and Economic Development”) l PSU students on an equivalent programme to have the option of studying one specific module online at York (“The Environment and the Policy Process”)

T HE U NIVERSITY OF Y ORK Rationale and context Rationale l Pedagogic: the module offered by PSU is relevant to our programmes but not currently covered by them. So the agreement offers an opportunity to enhance the curriculum at little cost l Financial: the programmes currently attract very few US-based students. So the agreement offers a way of increasing students numbers and fee income from that part of the world Context l Other links with PSU since 2002 via the WUN (module authoring): so a history of collaboration l Examples of similar WUN arrangements that provide a model, in particular a joint PSU/ Leeds / Southampton programme in Geographical Information Systems [ l PSU has substantial experience on online teaching, via its huge World Campus

T HE U NIVERSITY OF Y ORK What has happened? l Long process of detailed discussion l Agreement drawn up (based on the example of the Leeds/ PSU/ Southampton contract) l Finalised in summer 07, signed at York and sent to PSU for signature l Arrangement advertised and one PSU student enrolled at York on a pilot in autumn 07– completed successfully l In the meantime signature put on hold at PSU l Signed at PSU in October 08

T HE U NIVERSITY OF Y ORK The issues that arose in working out the agreement l The details of the written agreement, such as: –academic procedures (induction, marking scales, appeal arrangements, etc) –governance –finance: fee transfer arrangements including exchange rates –tutoring arrangements l Quality and focus of the module material l Ownership and motivations (gaps emerged between the motivations of the original PSU instigators – the World Campus – and the academic department concerned)

T HE U NIVERSITY OF Y ORK Lessons learned: success factors l Clarity of objectives. Fine for the collaborating institutions to have different objectives, but they need to be a) clear and b) mutually achievable l Strategic fit l Assessment of costs and benefits l Ownership: a) an active champion and b) senior management support within each institution

T HE U NIVERSITY OF Y ORK In summary: l Collaboration has clear potential benefits, and can make a range of activity possible that couldn’t be tackled otherwise l The costs are also substantial (time, money, time, time…) l So a cost-benefit analysis is crucial l Compatibility (academic/ strategic) is also key l “quality” can’t be taken for granted l Trust is the underpinning factor