A MAJOR TURNING POINT – THE UK LEARNING AND TEACHING...
Transcript of A MAJOR TURNING POINT – THE UK LEARNING AND TEACHING...
A MAJOR TURNING POINT – THE UK LEARNING AND TEACHING SUPPORT NETWORK (LTSN)
S GASKIN
LTSN National Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Plymouth, UK.
Abstract
Over the last few years, UK Higher Education has witnessed several major commitments made
by the government to enhance learning and teaching in universities. Most notably, and most
recently, has been the development of the Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN),
which consists of 24 ‘Subject Centres’. The LTSN is a comprehensive, national network that
tackles learning and teaching issues and developments with a discipline-specific approach. This
paper describes the structure of the LTSN and focuses on one Subject Centre; the National
Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences. The paper also critically
describes some of the key activities, developments and projects co-ordinated by the Centre and
describes the multi-scale partnership approach which it has adopted in attempt to enhance the
quality of the student learning experience across these disciplines. Finally, the paper discusses
the future of the LTSN and highlights the critical partnerships that need to be maintained if this
major new initiative is to be successful and long-term.
Context
The UK government’s agendas for quality assurance and for support of learning and teaching in
Higher Education have recently seen substantial change and development. Arguably, the
biggest catalyst for such change was the report produced by the National Committee for Higher
Education (generally known in the UK as the ‘Dearing Report’) (NCHE, 1997). This report
placed learning and teaching at the heart of its vision for a well-educated and informed society
and a knowledge-based economy.
In recognition of the importance of learning and teaching, the Higher Education Funding
Council for England (HEFCE), the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW),
the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council (SHEFC) and the Department for Education in
Northern Ireland (DENI) have established a Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN),
consisting of 24 ‘Subject Centres’, which are supported by a Generic Centre and a
Technologies Centre. The advent of the Subject Centres can be seen as part of a larger
movement that includes, for example, the formation of the UK Institute for Learning and
Teaching (ILT) and other activities, to be supported by the new national Teaching and Quality
Enhancement Fund (TQEF) (Gardner, 2000). The TQEF is an aggregated fund, and a number
of long-running learning and teaching initiatives (see below) have been merged into this single
programme. All in all, the UK government has placed learning and teaching development in a
more prominent place on the Higher Education (HE) agenda. In fact, the year 2000 marked a
new era for major HE strategic initiatives in the UK, all ultimately having the same aim; to
enhance the student’s learning experience.
The LTSN initiative in the UK is original and unique. It is also challenging and testing. This
paper reports on the emergence of the LTSN and provides an overview of the structure of the
network. Furthermore, the paper critically evaluates the operation of the UK’s National Subject
Centre for Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences as an example of a triple-community,
discipline-based learning partnership.
Introduction
The main aim of the UK LTSN is to identify, promote and disseminate examples of good
practice in learning and teaching within and across all subject disciplines. Indeed, Jenkins and
Healey (2000) and Rust (2000) assert that there has been a rise in the interest in discipline-based
educational developments in recent years. It is hoped that the LTSN will have something to
offer to all staff involved in learning and teaching in HE, including academic staff, senior
managers, technicians, learning technologists, educational development staff, and staff
developers. Ostensibly, it will offer these individuals the opportunity to share their good ideas
and develop them with like-minded colleagues in a discipline-specific context. However, this
supposition has yet to be evidenced, as the LTSN is still in the early stages of operation. This
discipline-specific context is important, because for most academic staff their primary allegiance
is to their subject or profession (Healey, 1998). Indeed, Becher (1994) regards disciplines “as
academic tribes each with their own set of intellectual values and their own patch of cognitive
territory”. This has been supported by Rice (1995) who states that “improvement of teaching
needs to be rooted in the intellectual substance of the field”. Thus, it is would seem that
divorcing the development of learning and teaching from the subject being taught is undesirable.
The LTSN started in January 2000, and initially has a life-span of five years. It is asserted that
the LTSN will become the primary information and advice resource on learning and teaching
matters for all academic and support staff in UK HE (LTSN, 2001). The Higher Education
Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has committed over £6M per annum of support for the
LTSN over the period 1999-2000. With the other UK funding bodies, the HEFCE intends to
build the programme into a long-term support structure (i.e. > greater than 5 years) for learning
and teaching in HE. Ultimately, it intends to use the network as a basis for co-ordinating and
providing an accessible focus for the many national, institutional and subject-related initiatives
in HE learning and teaching practice.
The LTSN consists of 24 Subject Centres. During 1998 the HEFCE decided upon the clusters
of disciplines that were to be grouped together. According to some, this grouping of disciplines
was conducted by the HEFCE with limited consultation and explanation (Gardner, 2000). The
Centres that emerged were considered to be large enough to permit a critical mass of staff, but
not so large that disciplines with little or nothing in common were unnecessarily married
together in unnatural associations. The HEFCs announced in early 1999 that Geography, Earth
and Environmental Sciences would be aggregated, and several other disciplines were also
grouped. However, previous discipline groupings, such as that between Geography, Geology
and Meteorology in another educational initiatives (the Computers in Teaching Initiative – see
below), did not always proceed smoothly (Gardner, 2000). In other words, for some, the
aggregation of the three disciplines was cause for concern due to discipline distinctiveness.
Notwithstanding, it is increasingly recognised that the task of addressing environmental
problems increasingly involves integrating learning, teaching and research by teams of
geographers, geologists and environmental scientists. Indeed, some would argue that the
boundaries between geography, geology and environmental science have been growing more
permeable over the last few years (e.g. McGibbon, 2001). In recognition of this, after a difficult
period of consultation between the three disciplines and the HEFCE, a triple-community unified
bid to host the Subject Centre for GEES was submitted to the HEFCE by the University of
Plymouth, in collaboration with the relevant professional bodies and committees of Heads of
Departments. The bid was prepared by senior academics drawn from across the three
disciplines and involved careful consultation with the three communities. Interdisciplinary
collaboration and networking was a central feature of the bid’s preparation, and continues to be
a hallmark of the Centre’s work and approach.
All 24 Subject Centres collaborate with the LTSN Generic Centre that was established to
provide focus, management strength and easier accountability to the Higher Education Funding
Councils (HEFCs). The Generic Centre also exists to ensure that Subject Centre staff are aware
of broader developments in learning, teaching and assessment. The Generic Centre plays an
important role in ensuring that none of the Subject Centres become too insular in their approach,
despite collectively forming a network of service providers. This requires all Subject Centres
being open to ideas from other disciplines and pedagogic developments in other subjects.
Where necessary, Subject Centres are expected to collaborate with other cognate Subject
Centres to support interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary learning partnerships. For example,
the National Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences has established
links with the Subject Centres for Biosciences, the Built Environment, and Languages,
Linguistics and Area Studies (among others). While these links are further developed at LTSN
national events organised for staff, there is considerable scope for improvement in inter-Subject
Centre networking. The Subject Centres and the Generic Centre also liase with a centralised
Technology Centre that focuses on the development, rather than the subject-based application
and dissemination, of new learning and teaching technologies. A full list of all the Subject
Centres, together with further details of the Generic Centre and Technologies Centre, can be
found at: http://www.ltsn.ac.uk The LTSN as a whole also works closely with the Staff and
Educational Development Association (SEDA) and the newly established Institute for Learning
and Teaching (ILT).
Most Subject Centres are building on knowledge bases and networks built through many earlier
Higher Education learning and teaching initiatives. These include, the Computers in Teaching
Initiative (CTI) which spanned the last twenty years. CTI Centres witnessed discipline
marriages between Geography, Geology and Meteorology (http://www.geog.le.ac.uk/cti/) and
between Land Use and Environmental Sciences (http://www.clues.abdn.ac.uk) (plus others). In
addition, other learning and teaching projects have been funded through the Department for
Education and Employment (DfEE), the HEFCE Fund for the Development of Teaching and
Learning (FDTL) and the Teaching and Learning Technology Project (TLTP). Across the three
disciplines of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, these projects have included:
‘Disseminating good teaching, learning and assessment practices in Geography’ (http://
www.chelt.ac.uk/gdn/), ‘Interactive Mathematics and Geoscience Education’ (http://
www.ncl.ac.uk/geolsci/edu/ugrads/image.htm) and ‘Teaching and Learning at the Environment-
Society Interface’ (http://www.greenwich.ac.uk/-bj6l/talessi/), respectively. The notion of
building discipline-specific partnerships, together with an examination of the strengths and
weaknesses of such networks, is dealt with by Healey (2001a).
All of these former initiatives and projects have bestowed an important legacy of involvement,
commitment and good quality learning and teaching resources. However, the LTSN was set up
to try and effect a much needed co-ordinated approach between learning and teaching
developments at a national level. National (and international) co-operation on projects is a well-
established practice in research, and a need was perceived to develop this in learning and
teaching. Thus, the role of the LTSN was established.
In short, the LTSN core activities are therefore:
Setting up, supporting and developing learning and teaching networks;
Promoting and sharing good practices in learning, teaching and assessment;
Brokering the transfer of knowledge between users, experts, developers and innovators.
The LTSN National Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences
(GEES)
The LTSN National Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences (GEES)
is based at the University of Plymouth in south-west England. With a budget of around £300k
per annum, the National Subject Centre team for GEES consists of a Director (0.5 post), a
Manager, a Dissemination Co-ordinator, a C&IT Manager and an Administrative Assistant.
The Centre also benefits from four Senior Advisors who are based at their own institutions
around the UK. The Senior Advisors (0.2 posts) represent the three disciplines, and the field of
C&IT, and support the Centre in connecting directly into the existing subject-based and C&IT
networks. The senior advisors also link with staff who are already leading educational
initiatives and pioneering learning and teaching innovations.
The direction of the Subject Centre is overseen by a Steering Group which offers strategic
advice and guidance. Inclusivity and diversity from within and across the three discipline
communities is a hallmark of the Steering group and this is embodied in its membership. At
present there is a need to widen the expertise of the Steering Group to include an educational
developer, and a member of staff from the LTSN Generic Centre. To date, the Steering Group
has worked well, but the relationship between the Subject Centre staff and the Steering Group
will need continual careful handling if a healthy relationship is to be maintained. The Centre
also has an independent external evaluator, to ensure that it delivers on its key strategic aims.
In addition to working with the LTSN Generic, Technologies and cognate Subject Centres, the
Centre for GEES is also working in association with relevant professional bodies (including the
Royal Geographical Society with the Institute of British Geographers, and the Geological
Society), and with Committees of Heads of Departments across the three disciplines. It is
hoped that such collaboration will create a national and well-recognised inter-disciplinary
learning and teaching support environment. Support from well-established professional bodies
is important in order to give credibility and a critical mass to this new Higher Education
initiative.
In order for the Subject Centre to infiltrate the academic community and assert itself as a ‘major
support service’, it has effected links with all relevant university departments through the
identification of Subject Centre ‘representatives’. There are currently over 200 such
departments. In doing this, it is hoped that all Subject Centre activities, services and news items
will be effectively disseminated into the heart of the university system, namely, the academic
departments. The establishment of a discipline-specific network of people committed to
improving learning and teaching is of paramount importance to the success of the Subject
Centre for GEES.
As Healey (2001a) asserts, developing a core-group of interested individuals in the disciplines
is vital in developing discipline-based learning partnerships. So far, dialogue between the
Subject Centre and departmental contacts has been somewhat limited, and this has been an area
identified for improvement in the Subject Centre's communication strategy. It is necessary for
the Subject Centre to maintain regular contact with these important representatives, and to keep
them updated with Subject Centre activities, developments and projects, and other educational
developments. In time, it may be necessary to bring in new departmental members to improve
dialogue between this working group and Subject Centre staff. It may also transpire that some
departmental contacts have reluctantly been requested to act as an effective voice for their
department on learning and teaching issues.
As well as identifying departmental contact persons, the LTSN National Subject Centre for
GEES has also effected links with (non-discipline specific) educational/staff development units/
developers within each of the institutions under our remit. The Subject Centre considers such
units/individuals to play a key role in the strategic development of the Centre by identifying the
current state of play in learning and teaching developments in the academic community, and as
such, identifying the generic needs of the community to avoid insularity.
As well as establishing a national discipline-specific network of departmental contacts and
educational developers, the GEES Subject Centre also encourages individuals to contact the
Centre with questions or queries on any learning and teaching issue. This advisory and enquiry
service is important to maintain a personal and individualistic dimension to the Centre’s
activities.
In short, the operational framework of the GEES Subject Centre is synergistic and represents an
evolutionary step forward in effecting inter-disciplinary learning partnerships, which are
national and comprehensive.
This operational framework is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Operational framework within which the National Subject Centre for GEES functions.
Strategic Aims, Developments and Projects
The main aims of the National Subject Centre for GEES are:
To raise the level of staff awareness, development and expertise in learning and teaching across
the three disciplines;
To improve the quality and effectiveness of teaching in the three disciplines;
To enhance curriculum design, innovation and assessment;
To improve the quality of the students’ learning experience, and their preparation for the world
of work.
These key strategic aims are being carried forward by a variety of activities, developments and
projects which can be split into four main categories. These are:
conferences and workshops;
publications;
databases and registers;
an information gateway;
development projects.
Conferences and Workshops
The Subject Centre for GEES officially began its calendar of organising learning and teaching
conferences and workshops in the Autumn of 2000. Two conferences, entitled ‘Academic
Review: Supporting our Disciplines’ provided an introduction to the new system of subject
review overseen by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) in the UK. The new system is to be
introduced in January 2002 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and is already operating in
Scotland.
In running two conferences on the new process of Academic Review, the National Subject
Centre for GEES had the opportunity to establish itself as a supportive Centre on topical
learning and teaching issues in a community with high expectations of the Centre’s role. As
Academic Review is a major contemporary issue in UK HE at present, both conferences were
timely and well attended, demonstrating the need for a body to organise events of this nature.
Feedback from both conferences was positive, although attendance at one of the conferences
was rather poor.
The Subject Centre in collaboration with other educational projects, also organised a pilot
workshop for new and recently appointed staff in May 2000 (Clark et al. in submission). It
would appear that this type of discipline-based residential workshop is the first of its kind in the
UK. During the workshop, the delegates were given opportunities to learn about and evaluate a
range of approaches, methods and resources for learning, teaching and assessment in the three
disciplines of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences. In addition, they were given the
time to develop their own personal action plans to improve their teaching and extend their
continuing professional development (CPD).
The fourth main conference organised by the National Subject Centre in 2000 was on ‘Using C
& IT in fieldwork teaching’. It has been recognised for many years that fieldwork in the
disciplines of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences is an integral part of the degree
course and adds great value to the student learning experience (Kent et al. 1997). However,
due to the advent and availability of new technologies, the current issue is how to best use
technology to support field teaching. The conference aimed to demonstrate good practice and
provided a forum for some of the issues raised by the use of C & IT in fieldwork. A prevailing
theme throughout the day was that technology is a tool, which can be used as an important
enhancement for fieldwork teaching but should not be used as a substitute for the real thing.
As well as organising and running national events, the National Subject Centre for GEES is
also committed to enhancing learning and teaching in the disciplines of Geography, Earth and
Environmental Sciences, by supporting staff within their own institutions. To meet this
commitment, the GEES Subject Centre is currently co-ordinating a national programme of 50
departmental workshops over the next two years. Topics to be covered range from
‘dissertations in geography’ to ‘linking assessment and learning outcomes in environmental
sciences’. Departments choose topics that are most relevant to their needs and priorities. Take-
up of this service has been considerable, although the logistics of the exercise have at times been
problematic.
Publications
The National Subject Centre is also producing a learning and teaching publication ‘PLANET’.
The aims of PLANET are (i) to identify and disseminate good practice in learning and teaching
across the three disciplines and to present case studies and examples in a ‘magazine’ format, (ii)
to provide information for readers on Subject Centre activities and on related resources,
conferences and educational developments, and (iii) to provide a forum for the discussion of
ideas about learning and teaching in the three disciplines.
PLANET is available as a hard copy and is also obtainable from the Subject Centre’s website:
http://www.gees.ac.uk. Two editions have been produced as at July 2001.
Databases and Registers
In order for the Centre to offer such an enquiry/advisory service, several learning and teaching
databases have been compiled. Most significant is the register of expertise, which holds details
on individuals who have expertise in a wide array of learning and teaching issues, from small-
group teaching, to personal development profiling, and from computer-aided assessment to
pedagogic research. In addition, the Centre, through its web interface (see next section) is
developing a database of good practice. While this resource already exists in Geography in the
UK (the Geography Discipline Network, GDN – http://www.chelt.ac.uk/gdn/), the Centre,
through an external contract, is extending this existing resource to cover Earth Sciences and
Environmental Sciences. Both the register of expertise and the database(s) of good practice are
invaluable resources for individuals wanting to know more about specific learning and teaching
developments. For example, the GDN web pages regularly receive over 10,000 hits a week.
(Healey, 2001a). The Subject Centre anticipates the level of demand for this type of service to
be substantial over the next few years, as the profile of learning and teaching in HE is raised and
the pace of change accelerates.
Information Gateway
Another key activity of the National Subject Centre is the development of an ‘Information
Gateway’ (project TELLUS). Its aim is to provide a discipline-based Internet portal through
which quality learning and teaching materials can be accessed. The website will collate relevant
web-based material in a logical and searchable directory structure and will allow users to:
browse through the site;
search for resources;
customise the interface;
upload their own resources.
The URL for the project is http://www.tellus.ac.uk
Development Projects
Supporting good practice in learning and teaching is not only about sharing existing skills and
resources, it is also about facilitating the development of new ones. In recognition of this, the
Subject Centre supports various small-scale projects programmes, that are awarded funding on
a competitive basis. The funding programme aims to:
Support curriculum developments and other innovations which will enhance the quality of the
students’ learning experience;
Harness existing staff expertise and identify and encourage fresh talent;
Offer opportunities for continuing professional development of teaching and support staff in
the three disciplines;
Disseminate good practice to the wider communities;
Encourage collaboration and sharing of good practice between the three disciplines;
Widen participation in the Subject Centre’s work.
Details of those currently funded projects are available at: http://www.gees.ac.uk
What does the future hold for the LTSN?
Five main areas for consideration when planning for the future of the LTSN are (i) maintaining
sensitivity toward the mainstream academic community, (ii) understanding and integrating
C&IT-based approaches to learning and teaching, (iii) developing and internationalising the
LTSN, and (iv) promoting pedagogic research.
(i) Maintaining sensitivity to the mainstream academic community
The LTSN has considerable potential to make a difference to learning and teaching in UK HE
over the next five years. This is not an admission that the current quality of higher education is
poor, but it is part of a wider recognition that the pendulum may have swung too far towards
research and that it is important to raise the status and profile of teaching (Chalkley, 2000).
However, the network needs to recognise that there is a great deal of existing good practice and
innovation in learning, teaching and assessment, but greater support and effort to promote and
transfer such practices are required (Allan, 2000). It has already become transparent at the
GEES Subject Centre that there are concerns from some academics practising in universities that
newer learning and teaching agendas will replace more traditional styles and approaches long
practised and established within the system. However, continuing diversity is healthy and
should be welcomed, providing that it has clear ‘value-added’ benefits, that it is appropriate for
the course/topic and the recipients, and that any new methods are clearly shown to be effective.
In addition, it is the responsibility of the GEES Subject Centre to ensure that a balanced,
inclusive and equitable approach is adopted when dealing with the three discipline communities.
As Gardner (2000) highlights, a particular issue for geography within the triple-subject
grouping is the adequate provision for human geography with the Subject Centre’s remit.
Gardner states that “it is essential that in a grouping that is substantially physical science
weighted that human geography teaching remains strongly and actively supported”. On the
other hand, the Subject Centre Director, being a human geographer may be of equal concern to
those in other disciplines. Maintaining a politically equitable balance has not been easy since
inception. This has often been due to external mistakes being made in Subject Centre branding
which has, on occasion, led to the exclusion of some disciplines from the full and proper title of
the Subject Centre.
One issue that the Subject Centre must be very careful about is the relationship between itself
and the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). The QAA is responsible for assessing standards in
all UK HE institutions. There has, anecdotally, been some confusion in the academic
community over this relationship, especially given that a new process of academic review is to
introduced shortly in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and is already in operation in
Scotland. The Subject Centre is not responsible for the design of the new QAA procedures, but
it can assist departments in understanding the procedures and preparing for the new teaching
assessment exercise. The roles of the facilitator and judge must be clearly distinguished. If not,
such uncertainty and confusion could have detrimental effects on the image of the Subject
Centre at a critical early stage in it’s operation.
(ii) Understanding and integrating C&IT-based approaches to learning and teaching
The further integration of C&IT-based approaches to learning and teaching is an element that
needs to be given high priority in all Subject Centres. The Centre for GEES has a particular
commitment to C&IT and to raising awareness of the opportunities created by the appropriate
use of the new technologies. It is considered by some that one of the biggest changes in HE
over the next ten years will be students who enter HE after several years of using and
developing expertise in communications and information technologies (Allan, 2001). These
students will expect to see the application of C&IT in the lecture room, the laboratory and in the
field. In recognition of this, the HE community needs to be adaptable and responsive to shifts
of this nature in student expectations and student expertise.
(iii) Developing and internationalising the LTSN
In order for the LTSN to be a major national and international hub in the exchange of ideas and
best practice in learning and teaching in HE, the network should internationalise. This will
ensure that it does not become insular and just focus on what goes on in the UK (Healey,
1998). International co-operation on projects is a well-established practice in research, and there
is a need to develop this for learning and teaching. After all, many of the issues that the
disciplines face in learning and teaching in HE transcend national boundaries; for example, how
to integrate C&IT into the curriculum or how to enhance student employability. To some extent,
such expansion into the international community is already a feature of the GEES Subject
Centre, but is something that could be, and should be, further developed. Recently, the
International Network for Learning and Teaching Geography in HE (INLT) convened at the
University of Plymouth in the UK, the home of the GEES Subject Centre. The Subject Centre
assisted in the co-ordination of the event. This enabled the Centre to tap into the international
expertise that had gathered on our doorstep. The meeting proved to be useful and insightful,
and further meetings are planned to which GEES representatives will contribute. In addition,
GEES members of staff were also present at the Geological Society of America Annual Summit
2000 where contacts were effected with key educational developers and academics in learning
and teaching Geosciences education in the USA.
(iv) Pedagogic research
Two key issues in UK HE at present are (i) how to raise the profile of research into learning
and teaching and (ii) understanding the link between teaching and research. The Subject Centre
can play a key role in addressing both of these issues.
Through promoting discipline-based pedagogic research, the Subject Centre (and the LTSN)
has the potential to become an influential body/network in developing synergies between
learning and teaching and research. Discipline-based pedagogic research is at an early stage in
its development in the UK, and if it is to be encouraged and nurtured not only should it be
valued, but steps should be taken to raise the capacity of staff in the disciplines to undertake
high quality research (Healey, 2001a). The Subject Centre can play a key role in achieving this
goal, through a variety of mechanisms. These might include the provision of pedagogic
research training through conferences and workshops, effecting links between inexperienced
pedagogic researchers and those with considerable expertise and a proven track record, funding
research, and the general promotion and awareness raising of this type of research at the
departmental level.
With respect to item (ii) above, HEFCE (1995) asserted in the Geography Subject Review
report that “there was clear evidence of scholarship and research activity having a beneficial
impact on teaching and learning in around half of the providers visited”. This has been
supported in J M Consulting which asserts that there is a strong relationship between good
teaching and research. Other evidence suggests that the relationship between teaching and
research is a complex one, and where it does exists, it takes place through elements which are
common to both processes (Healey, 2001b). As Jenkins (2000) states, “the strongest policy
claim that derives from this analysis….is that universities need to set as a mission goal the
improvement of the nexus between research and teaching”. This is where the LTSN can play a
key role by suggesting ways in which research and teaching can be married together. As Hattie
and Marsh (1996) state “the aim is to increase the circumstances in which teaching and research
have occasion to meet, and to provide rewards not only for better teaching or for better research
but for demonstrations of the integration between teaching and research”. If the learning and
teaching agenda is to be taken seriously, it is important to ensure that the mechanisms through
which the student learning experience are enhanced are well-researched and documented. If this
requires closer connection between research and teaching, then the Subject Centre needs to be
ready to offer support, advice and examples of how this marriage can be made more effective.
Summary in relation to Learning Partnerships
LTSN Partnerships at the International Level
The LTSN Subject Centre for GEES is effecting international links with global discipline-
specific networks. This is because issues and projects in learning and teaching in one country
are often directly transferable to other countries. The Centre has a global reach and is keen to
effect learning partnerships in the international arena.
LTSN Partnerships at the National Level
Twenty four Subject Centres, a Generic Centre, a Technologies Centre and the close liaison
between the LTSN, professional bodies, Committees of Heads of Departments, SEDA and the
ILT underpin this national and synergistic discipline-specific network. Most Subject Centres
are building on substantial knowledge bases and networks built through many earlier Higher
Education learning and teaching initiatives, thus adding a further collaborative dimension to the
network.
Discipline-Specific Partnerships at the Departmental Level
The National Subject Centre for Geography Earth and Environmental Sciences (GEES) is
working closely with over 200 university departments and 130 educational developers. Each
department has nominated a Subject Centre representative whose role it is to act as an effective
voice for the department, and to contact the Centre on behalf of the department with any learning
and teaching issue(s). This number is likely to grow, as more individuals become involved with
Subject Centre activities, developments and projects over the course of the next few years.
Regular contact between the Subject Centre and this important cohort of individuals is to be
maintained.
Partnerships at the Individual Level
The National Subject Centre for GEES also offers an individual enquiry and advisory service
on learning and teaching issues in HE. It is hoped that this service will facilitate effecting
individual partnerships between the Centre and various academics and support staff, collectively
all striving to enhance student learning. Provision of a service of this nature means that the
Centre is likely to be able to put academics with a problem in contact with other academics who
have relevant experience.
Conclusion
In short, the emergence of the LTSN in the UK represents an evolutionary step forward in
effecting learning partnerships that are wide-ranging and multi-layered. Synergy, coherence and
co-ordination are key features of the initiative. The Subject Centre for GEES is establishing
learning partnerships at four scales: the international level, the national level, the departmental
level and the individual level. This multi-scale approach to learning and teaching is considered
to be one way of dealing with the multi-scale learning and teaching issues that face Higher
Education in the UK. The paper has also highlighted some of the key development areas for
new Subject Centres. It has also described some of the weaknesses in the operation of a new
Subject Centre (for GEES), as well as some political sensitivities. It is possible that the LTSN
model in the UK will have a wider transferability to other countries. This raises an issue for
discussion.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Prof Brian Chalkey and Prof Mick Healey for commenting on
earlier drafts of this manuscript.
References
Allan, C. (2000). The learning and teaching support network (LTSN): the implications for
educational developers. Educational Developments, 1.2, 1 – 3.
Allan, C. (2001). ‘A word from the boss’. PLANET, 1, 1.
Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education, 19
(2), 151-161.
Chalkley, B. (1998). Geography and quality in Higher Education. Geography, 83(1), 53-62.
Chalkley, B. (2000). Introducing the new national subject centre for Geography, Earth and
Environmental Sciences, GeoCal, 21, 20-22.
Clark, G., Healey, M., Jenkins, A., Blumhof, J., Chalkley, B., Gravestock, P., Honeybone, A.,
King, H., & Thomas, N. (2001). A national discipline-based workshop for new lecturers
in higher education. In submission.
J M Consulting. (2000). Interactions between research and teaching and other academic
activities. Report for HEFCE, Bristol, UK.
Gardner, R. (2000). Establishment, role and relevance of a Subject Centre for UK Geography.
Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 24(2), 157-162.
Hattie, J. & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: a meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 507– 542.
Jenkins, A. (2000). Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 24(3), 325–351.
Jenkins, A. & Healey, M. (2000). Get disciplined: geographic perspectives. HERDSA News,
22, 11-13.
Healey, M. (1998). Developing and internationalising higher education networks in Geography.
Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 22(3), 277-282.
Healey, M. (2001a). Developing learning partnerships through the disciplines. Paper
submitted to the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australia annual
conference on 'Learning Partnerships', The University of Newcastle, Australia, 8-11 July
2001.
Healey, M. (2001b). Teaching and the RAE. PLANET, 1, 4-6.
(HEFCE) (Higher Education Funding Council for England) (1995). Quality Assessment for
Geography, 1994– 5. Subject Overview Report. Bristol: HEFCE.
(HEFCE) (Higher Education Funding Council for England) (2000) Review of Research 00/37.
Bristol: HEFCE.
Kent, M., Gilbertson, D, & Hunt, O. (1997). Improving the preparation for fieldwork with ‘IT’:
two examples from physical geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 21
(3), 313-332.
QAA (Quality Assurance Agency) (2000). Handbook for Academic Review. Gloucester:
QAA.
LTSN (Learning and Teaching Support Network) (2001). http://www.ltsn.ac.uk (accessed 22
January 2001).
McGibbon, M. (2001). Synergy: The Greenwich experience. PLANET, 1, 14-16.
NCHE (National Committee for Higher Education) (1997). Higher Education in the Learning
Society. Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. London:
HMSO.
Rice, E. R. (1995). Foreword. In R. M. Diamond & B. A. Adams (Eds.), The disciplines
speak: rewarding the scholarly, professional, and creative work of faculty (pp. v-vii).
Washington: American Association for Higher Education.
Rust, C. (Ed.) (2000). Improving student learning through the disciplines. Proceedings of the
7th international symposium. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development,
Oxford Brookes University.
Main Acronyms Used
HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England)
LTSN (Learning and Teaching Support Network)
GEES (Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences)