Flexible Learning: Conditions of Flexibility

Source: The Higher Education Academy (HEA)
Source: The Higher Education Academy (HEA)

This is the seventh (and final) in a short series of posts on the work undertaken by the Higher Education Academy (HEA) on flexible learning.

Background

This final report (Barnett, 2014) is the culmination of four earlier reports, under the aegis of ‘Flexible Pedagogies’, which have considered flexible learning from a range of perspectives. It draws upon and brings together those many threads that have been offered in the previous complementary reports. The report references the HEA‘s overarching research question:

Why and to what extent might flexible pedagogies be promoted, and in what ways?

Professor Ron Barnett, the report’s author, offers a nuanced critical analysis of what flexibility may – and may not – mean, and the conditions under which a greater measure of flexibility is likely to flourish within, and benefit, the United Kingdom (UK) Higher Education (HE) system.

Flexing Flexibility

The notion of flexibility in higher education is not new. Barnett (2014) recounts that in 1858, the University of London offered degrees to any (male) student regardless of where they were in the world. Barnett also notes that flexibility, within the literature, has been theme for inquiry and investigation for more than 20 years, yet it has become something of an “empty concept”, arguing:

Flexibility being such a fluid and indeed inchoate and elusive concept, with rather loose attachments to specific settings, it can be – and is – called up to meet many if not all of the alleged shortcomings in and challenges facing higher education. (ibid., 2014:32)

If there is too little flexibility then the systems that are in place are unable to be responsive. On the other hand, too much flexibility could run the risk of lowering standards.

Conditions of Flexibility

Barnett (2014) proposes a set of yardsticks that he calls conditions of flexibility by which institutions are able evaluate their flexible provision:

  1. lead to a qualification that contributes to major awards (such as degrees or their equivalent);
  2. offer all students access to suitable materials and appropriate cognitive and practical experiences;
  3. offer academic interaction with other students;
  4. offer access to tutors, in real-time interaction;
  5. offer prompt and informative (formative) feedback from tutors;
  6. offer access to other academic services (such as counselling, academic and careers advice);
  7. offer financial services (appropriate to the cost to students in financing their studies);
  8. enable students to offer feedback on their total experience;
  9. provide a pedagogical openness;
  10. be academically and educationally structured;
  11. offer ladder(s) of progression;
  12. be suitably robust and reliable (with built-in safeguards appropriate to the risk);
  13. be cost-effective;
  14. have sufficient structure so as to enable student completion to be a likely outcome; and
  15. contain sufficient challenge that students are likely to be cognitively and experientially stretched and to be informed by a spirit of criticality appropriate to each stage of a programme of studies (so as fully to realise the promise of a higher education).

…and finally

In his concluding remarks, Barnett (2014) is cognizant that “not every instance of ‘flexible provision’ will meet all of these 15 conditions of flexibility” (p.68) and suggests that institutions should construct a flexibility analysis and evaluation as a means to check the “educational soundness” of the flexible provision project. He calls for a “steady gaze” upon the “conditions” to act as a catalyst towards new thinking, new practices and new approaches in response to an uncertain and complex world.

References

Barnett, R. (2014). Conditions of Flexibility: Securing a more responsive Higher Education system. York, England: The Higher Education Academy (HEA). Available at: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/flexible-pedagogies-preparing-future [Accessed 17.3.2015].

Advertisements

Flexible Learning: Technology-Enhanced Learning

Source: The Higher Education Academy (HEA)
Source: The Higher Education Academy (HEA)

This is the sixth in a short series of posts on the work undertaken by the Higher Education Academy (HEA) on flexible learning.

Background

The report on technology-enhanced learning (TEL) (Gordon, 2014) is the fourth (and final) in a short series of complementary reports from the HEA that go under the banner of “flexible pedagogies”. The report is guided by the HEA’s overarching research question:

Why and to what extent might flexible pedagogies be promoted, and in what ways?

The report considers the role of information and communications technology (ICT) and information technology (IT) through the three “main dimensions” of flexible learning that supports pace (e.g. accelerated and decelerated degrees), place (e.g. work-based learning and employer engagement), and mode of learning (e.g. blended learning).

Whilst the report is suggestive of the opportunities that technology could bring to flexible provision, it was also mindful that it could generate new dilemmas for institutions, with fresh issues around collaborative learning, plagiarism and the resource implications of allowing such choices.

Levels of Flexibility

Complementing the three “main dimensions” of flexible learning, the report (Gordon, 2014) suggests three “levels of flexibility” which are a mix of philosophical and practical perspectives. These are articulated in the following way:

  • ontological – the flexibility of the students themselves, such as how flexible they are to deal with different learning approaches as well as the wider context around them that affect their studies and their future development;
  • pedagogical – theories and delivery of learning in terms of the flexibility of the teaching, its approaches and modes; and
  • systems – how institutional structures and processes allow for flexibility in teaching (pedagogy) and learning (ontology).

Similarly these “levels” can be viewed as both opportunities and challenges to Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) who want to adopt a flexible TEL approach.

Examples of TEL

The report offers a number of examples of how learning technologies are enabling learning, teaching and assessment. These include:

  • team projects, group work and peer assessment;
  • balancing and utilising formative and summative assessments when using computer aided assessment;
  • adopting e-submission and providing informative and timely e-feedback; and
  • applying new approaches to engage and motivate students.

However, as noted in the HEA Flexible Learning Pathfinders project, whilst learning technologies can be an enabler for greater flexibility in learning; there are other ways in which flexibility could be introduced that was not necessarily dependent on a technological solution (Outram 2011).

Technology-Enabled Models

The report describes a range of approaches to learning that are significantly dependent on technology. These include:

  • personalised learning – tailoring the learning experience to an individual student’s needs and desires;
  • support for synchronous and asynchronous activities – the former representing activities done in real time with immediate interaction (e.g. webinar), the latter those done over a period of time (e.g. discussion board);
  • flexible learning – similar to personalised but with a greater focus on how the material adapts to an individual’s progress, and may include adaptive/flexi-level testing;
  • gamification – the use of game techniques (especially game mechanics) to encourage and motivate activities can be especially relevant to learning;
  • online learning – the use of Internet-based TEL to deliver content that supports anytime, anywhere, anyplace characteristics; and
  • blended learning – a mix of physical/real-world interaction complemented by virtual/digital-world interaction.

The report acknowledges that whilst the above list is not exhaustive, it does indicate those areas that can provide scalable and pragmatic solutions. By way of a conclusion, the report recognises that the fundamental learning and teaching activities are “not altered”; that is accessing concepts and ideas, assimilating these through practice and ultimately demonstrating mastery. What technology offers, the report’s author notes, is scalability, flexibility and new ways of learning.

References

Gordon, N. (2014). Flexible Pedagogies: Technology-Enhanced Learning. York, England: The Higher Education Academy (HEA). Available at: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/flexible-pedagogies-technology-enhanced-learning [Accessed 17.3.2015].

Outram, S. (2011). Final Evaluation of the HEFCE-funded Flexible Learning Pathfinder Projects. York, England: The Higher Education Academy (HEA). Available at: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/node/3527 [Accessed 17.3.2015].

Flexible Learning: New Pedagogical Ideas

Source: The Higher Education Academy (HEA)
Source: The Higher Education Academy (HEA)

This is the fifth in a short series of posts on the work undertaken by the Higher Education Academy (HEA) on flexible learning.

Background

The report on new pedagogical ideas (Ryan & Tilbury, 2013) is the third in a short series of complementary reports from the HEA that go under the banner of “flexible pedagogies”. The report is guided by the HEA’s overarching research question:

Why and to what extent might flexible pedagogies be promoted, and in what ways?

The report considers the relationship between flexibility and pedagogy in terms of core purposes and modes of participation for teaching and learning in Higher Education (HE). Flexible provision has the potential to open up more democratic and emancipatory approaches to learning and teaching, which can be “obscured by technological ‘mist’” (Ryan & Tilbury, 2013:4).

New Pedagogical Ideas

Following an extensive literature review and consultation with key informants involved in HE teaching and learning, the report’s authors develop the following six “new pedagogical ideas”:

  1. learner empowerment – actively involving students in learning development and processes of ‘co-creation’ that challenge current learning relationships and the power frames that underpin them (cfPartners in Learning’);
  2. future-facing education – an educational vision concerned with enabling people to think critically, creatively and flexibly about future prospects, to generate alternative visions of future possibilities, to initiate action in pursuit of those visions (cfFutures Initiatives’);
  3. decolonising education – concerned with deconstructing dominant pedagogical perspectives which promote singular worldviews to extend the inter-cultural understanding and experiences of students (cf ‘Internationalisation’, ‘Inclusive Curriculum’);
  4. transformative capabilities – creates an educational focus beyond an emphasis solely on knowledge and understanding towards agency and competence, towards more engaged approaches to learning;
  5. crossing boundaries – taking an integrative and systemic approach to pedagogy in HE, to generate inter-disciplinary, inter-professional and cross-sectoral learning to maximise collaboration and shared perspectives; and
  6. social learning – developing cultures and environments for learning to harness the emancipatory power of spaces and interactions outside the formal curriculum, can draw upon new technologies and co-curricular activities (cfAugustine House’).

The six new pedagogical ideas identified by the authors were selected on the basis of four key considerations:

  • they are geared towards the ‘bigger picture’ and future strategic innovation in the curriculum;
  • they are ‘novel’ in the sense that they are not commonly practiced across HE;
  • they demonstrate pedagogical concern with ‘flexibility’ in their focus on enabling learners to anticipate; and
  • they aim to reposition education, by making use of democratic and inclusive learning practices and drawing on pedagogies that can support change and innovation.

Concluding Remarks

In framing their conclusion, the report’s authors recognised that in order for HE to deliver flexible provision, it needed to acknowledge that both tutor and learner needed flexibility across several levels to be able to address societal, economic and environmental issues in an increasingly globalised world (GUNI 2011).

It should be borne in mind that these six new pedagogical ideas are not limited to the confines of a classroom or learning context, but are able to refresh and revitalise the pedagogy of the institution and the HE system as a whole to gain traction across different subjects and in terms of the broader university learning experience. The authors note that there are potential links between the flexibility in the learner and the flexibility in the pedagogies, links that can only come to light through the tutor and their approach to the “learning dynamic”. There are also opportunities to expand scholarship to explore at conceptual, empirical and theoretical levels how these new pedagogies are posited within the flexible learning discourse. However, they are mindful that:

…not all of these efforts bring democratisation and empowerment into the learning process, or foster adaptability and inclusivity in learners and educators – attributes which will be at the heart of any ‘flexible pedagogy’ in future HE that is worthy of the label. (Ryan & Tilbury, 2013:31)

References

GUNI. (2011). Higher Education in the World 4: Higher Education’s Commitment to Sustainability: from Understanding to Action. Barcelona, Spain: Global Universities Network for Innovation (GUNI).

Ryan, A. & Tilbury, D. (2013). Flexible Pedagogies: New Pedagogical Ideas. York, England: The Higher Education Academy (HEA). Available at: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/flexible-pedagogies-new-pedagogical-ideas [Accessed 17.3.2015].

Flexible Learning: Employer Engagement

Source: The Higher Education Academy (HEA)
Source: The Higher Education Academy (HEA)

This is the fourth in a short series of posts on the work undertaken by the Higher Education Academy (HEA) on flexible learning.

Background

The report on employer engagement and work-based learning (WBL) (Kettle, 2013) is the second in a short series of complementary reports from the HEA that go under the banner of “flexible pedagogies”. The report is guided by the HEA’s overarching research question:

Why and to what extent might flexible pedagogies be promoted, and in what ways?

The report makes reference to Leitch Report (Leitch, 2006) which highlighted the need for considerable improvement in skills at intermediate and higher levels if the United Kingdom (UK) was to remain competitive globally. Another reference was the recent Wilson Report (Wilson, 2012) which reinforced the need for stronger relationships between business and higher education (HE).

Moreover, a number of agendas (e.g. the Higher Ambitions report and the Students at the Heart of the System white paper) have been outlined by the present and previous UK governments. These have highlighted the importance of graduate skills and emphasised the need for HE providers to improve collaborative relationships with employers.

Defining ‘Employer Engagement’ and ‘Work-Based Learning’

According to the report (Kettle, 2013), employer engagement is best defined “as a range of activities, initiatives and approaches which are best conceptualised as a continuum” (p.4). Though it was noted that the term tended to be “nuanced” and was often “contested”.

However, the notion of employer engagement also encapsulates responsive teaching and learning developments for up-skilling and developing people already in work and fostering capability and attributes to enhance the employability of students in HE.

This definition has led towards a “typology of learners”:

  • The Model 1 Learner are already at work, they are employees and therefore have a dual identity; and
  • The Model 2 Learner are using a work-related learning activity to develop their knowledge, skills and understanding.

Thus, there is a three-way relationship between the higher education provider, the earner and the employer.

Finally, the report draws on the work of Brennan and Little (1996) in attempting to define work-based learning (WBL):

…linking learning to the work role, but this does not only mean preparing for a specific job. Three strands have been identified: learning for work, learning at work, and learning through work. (ibid., 1996:8)

The Report’s Recommendations

The report argues that considerable resources have been directed towards the employer engagement agenda and that the work-based learning aspect of it is enjoying considerable attention. In conclusion, the report’s author (Kettle, 2013) recommends that:

  • the academic community continues to identify and evaluate evidence-informed pedagogic approaches to both work-related and work-based learning;
  • institutional strategies for learning and teaching, including the use of ICT systems and web 2.0 technologies, are reviewed to assess the connections between these and the way teaching staff utilise and develop flexible pedagogies in the context of employer engagement;
  • examples of whole institutional approaches to employer engagement should be identified and explored within the context of the continuum outlined here to further the discussion around flexible pedagogies; and
  • evidence of student engagement with the development and delivery of flexible learning approaches for both work-based learning and work-related learning should be evaluated.

References

Brennan, J. & Little, B. (1996). A Review of Work Based Learning in Higher Education. Sheffield, England: Department for Education and Employment (DfEE). Available at: http://oro.open.ac.uk/11309/ [Accessed 17.3.2015].

Kettle, J. (2013). Flexible Pedagogies: Employer Engagement and Work-Based Learning. York, England: The Higher Education Academy (HEA). Available at: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/flexible-pedagogies-employer-engagement-and-work-based-learning [Accessed 17.3.2015].

Leitch, S. (2006). Prosperity for all in the Global Economy – World Class Skills, (The Leitch Report) London, England: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO). Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20070701082906/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/leitch_review/review_leitch_index.cfm [Accessed 17.3.2015].

Wilson, T. (2012). A Review of Business–University Collaboration, (The Wilson Report). London, England: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/business-university-collaboration-the-wilson-review [Accessed 17.3.2015].

Flexible Learning: Part-Time Learners

Source: The Higher Education Academy (HEA)
Source: The Higher Education Academy (HEA)

This is the third in a short series of posts on the work undertaken by the Higher Education Academy (HEA) on flexible learning.

Background

The report on part-time learners and learning (McLinden, 2013) is the first in a short series of complementary reports from the HEA that go under the banner of “flexible pedagogies”. The reports presents, for the first time, the overarching research question that is underpinning the HEA’s flexible learning theme:

Why and to what extent might flexible pedagogies be promoted, and in what ways?

This report, and other reports in the series, frame and position its responses against the overarching research question and draws upon the three “main dimensions” of flexible learning that supports pace (e.g. accelerated and decelerated degrees), place (e.g. work-based learning and employer engagement), and mode of learning (e.g. technology-enhanced learning).

The report (McLinden, 2013) notes that recent government reforms (e.g. BIS, 2011) places the student experience at the very ‘heart’ of Higher Education with institutions expected to deliver a quality student experience, improving teaching, assessment and feedback, as well as preparing students for the world of work. It is against this backdrop that the report considers the changing role of part-time learners as the once-traditional division between full-time and part-time learners is becoming increasingly blurred with students looking to structure their study time around work and family commitments.

Defining ‘Part-Time Learners’

Like flexible learning, there is no single definition of part-time learners or part-time learning. However, a commonly used definition in the United Kingdom (UK) is provided by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) and “includes students [who are] recorded as studying part-time, or studying full-time on courses lasting less than 24 weeks, on block release, or studying during the evenings only” (HESA, 2012).

However, the report recognises that notions of ‘full-time’ or ‘part-time’ will not be able to record the nuances of different study modes that exist across the sector (i.e. sandwich course).

Profiling ‘Part-Time Learners’

Drawing from a recent HEFCE report, this reports presents a profile of the part-time student population in England:

  • likely to be non-traditional learners and tend to be mature;
  • one in four students in undergraduate study have no qualifications above GCSE or equivalent (or no qualifications at all);
  • young students from disadvantaged backgrounds were twice as likely as the most advantaged young students to choose part-time study;
  • around two-thirds of part-time students have caring or family commitments;
  • reduction in part-time numbers will have a disproportionate effect on certain groups of students.

Flexible Learning Provision for ‘Part-Time Learners’

In the report’s concluding section, it suggests four main, yet intersecting, strategies to open up higher education opportunities to prospective students who would have ordinarily been prevented from studying by such barriers as family commitments or employment:

  • using digital technologies to deliver teaching online;
  • revising pedagogic practices;
  • providing flexibility in course scheduling / structures and professional experience (or placements);
  • ensuring more accepting and open attitudes to learner diversity.

On a positive note, the report suggested that the UK HE sector was becoming more responsive in “recognising and understanding the broader pedagogical needs relating to part-time study”.

References

BIS. (2011). Higher Education: Students at the Heart of the System. London, England: Department of Business Innovation and Skills (BIS). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/higher-education-white-paper-students-at-the-heart-of-the-system [Accessed 17.3.2015].

HESA. (2012). Definitions for Students and Qualifiers Statistics. Cheltenham, England: Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). Available at: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/content/view/1902/#mode [Accessed 17.3.2015].

McLinden, M. (2013). Flexible Pedagogies: Part-Time Learners and Learning in Higher Education. York, England: The Higher Education Academy (HEA). Available at: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/flexible-pedagogies-part-time-learners-and-learning-higher-education [Accessed 17.3.2015].

Flexible Learning: The Summit

Source: The Higher Education Academy (HEA)
Source: The Higher Education Academy (HEA)

This is the second in a short series of posts on the work undertaken by the Higher Education Academy (HEA) on flexible learning.

Background

The HEA organised a Flexible Learning Summit in Leeds on 31 October and 1 November 2011. The summit brought together practitioners from across the Higher Education (HE) sector in the United Kingdom (UK) who had experience of innovative practice of different flexible learning provisions.

The purpose of the summit was to enable practitioners to identify the key enablers and barriers to the “main dimensions” of flexible learning; and to ascertain whether there were any inter-related issues that were common across the “main dimensions” that could be strategically addressed at institutional and national policy levels. The conclusions and recommendations from the summit were set out in a report (Tallantyre, 2011).

Defining ‘Flexibility’

It had already been noted in the final Flexible Learning Pathfinders (FLP) report (Outram, 2011) that definitions of flexible learning tended to “vary and are often too general or nebulous”. The HEA chose to “define flexible learning in terms of offering students choice in the pace, place and mode of learning”. Thus, the three “main dimensions” of flexible learning are:

  • Pace – This encapsulates such issues as accelerated and decelerated programmes; part-time learning; recognition of prior learning (i.e. APEL); and associated use of credit frameworks.
  • Place – Although this is mainly concerned with work-based learning (WBL), it can include the role of private providers of higher education; Further Education (FE) provision; and recognition that technology-enabled learning (TEL) can enable flexibility across national and international boundaries.
  • Mode of Learning – This is concerned with the role of learning technologies in enhancing flexibility and enriching the student experience. It also encapsulates distance learning (DL), blended learning (BL) as well as synchronous and asynchronous modes of learning.

The report (Tallantyre, 2011) acknowledged that the three “main dimensions” of flexible learning were informed by the need to ensure that learning was “responsive to the requirements and choices of an increasingly diverse and demanding body of learners” and were “driven by the requirements and preferences of learners or sponsors of learning (e.g. employers)”.

The Summit’s Recommendations

Informed by the various barriers and enablers to flexible learning provision that was identified during the course of the summit, a set of fourteen recommendations for actions were proposed by the Summit delegates. Their recommendations are directed to government and funding bodies, national bodies, and senior institutional managers to consider and act upon. These recommendations included:

  • the development of new funding frameworks that take in to account of credits delivered rather than years of study;
  • encouraging national bodies like UCAS, HEA, QAA and JISC to collaborate to produce evidence-based guides for potential learners and institutional staff on flexible learning provision;
  • the HEA to support the development of higher education continued professional development (CPD) programmes to promote best practices in flexible provision which is aligned to the UK Professional Standards Framework;
  • senior managers encouraged to lead on effective resource allocation, review roles and workload implications, and prompt the development of appropriate frameworks and policies which support reward and recognition in the delivery of flexible learning.

References

Outram, S. (2011). Final Evaluation of the HEFCE-funded Flexible Learning Pathfinder Projects. York, England: The Higher Education Academy (HEA). Available at: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/node/3527 [Accessed 17.3.2015].

Tallantyre, F. (2011). Flexible Learning Summit Report. York, England: The Higher Education Academy (HEA). Available at: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/flexible-learning/Flexible_Learning_Summit_Report [Accessed 17.3.2015].

Flexible Learning: The Pathfinder Projects (2005-2010)

Source: The Higher Education Academy (HEA)
Source: The Higher Education Academy (HEA)

This is the first in a short series of posts on the work undertaken by the Higher Education Academy (HEA) on flexible learning.

Background

In response to the Government’s 2003 Higher Education White Paper (DfES, 2003), the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) provided funding for the Higher Education Academy (HEA) to investigate different forms of flexible study and provision. The HEA launched the Flexible Learning Pathfinders (FLP) to fund eight Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to pilot such projects. The Pathfinder projects ran from 2005 to 2010. This work culminated into a final report (Outram, 2011) that provided a springboard for the HEA to develop a major theme around flexible learning.

Defining ‘Flexibility’

The report (Outram, 2011) recognised that definitions of flexible learning tended to “vary and are often too general or nebulous”, but contended that flexible learning could be concerned about “how, where, when, and at what pace learning occurs”. It also recognised that technology had a part to play to “enable greater flexibility in learning”, though flexibility could be “introduced in significant ways” that were not dependent on technology (e.g. accelerated programmes).

The Findings

The Pathfinder projects reported some success in introducing, sustaining and developing different forms of flexible provisions, particularly around accelerated degrees and work-based learning. However, the initial pilot pathfinder projects had remained “small-scale” and did not “significantly transfer” flexible delivery into other subject areas.

Where there was demand for flexible provision, it had been limited to vocational courses and from mature students. Furthermore, certain subjects, like Law, were considerably interested in accelerated degrees. However, the take up from prospective students had been “relatively low” due to their lack of awareness on the study alternatives that were provided.

It was also reported that there seemed to be support from employers and professional bodies for flexible provision. Moreover, there was some evidence to suggest that accelerated degree students’ achievements were comparable to those students who undertook traditional degrees.

The Barriers

The eight institutional Pathfinder projects raised a number of concerns and issues that could potentially hinder wide-scale expansion of flexible provision. These included:

  • cost and difficulties implementing the necessary infrastructural changes;
  • gaining the ‘hearts and minds’ of staff to support such an undertaking;
  • the perceived costs involved in delivering accelerated degrees; and
  • accelerated delivery may only attract certain subjects and types of students.

The Report’s Recommendations

The report’s author recommended a number of actions that needed to be undertaken in order to support the development of flexible learning provision. These included:

  • providing prospective students with better information around alternative study options and how these would be delivered;
  • basing fees on credits delivered rather than years of study;
  • changing institutional structures and systems to support flexible delivery;
  • demonstrate that accelerated degrees deliver similar outcomes to traditional degrees; and
  • give institutions organisational change and development support in delivering flexible provision.

References

DfES. (2003). The Future of Higher Education. London, England: Department for Education and Skills (DfES). Available at: http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/pdfs/2003-white-paper-higher-ed.pdf [Accessed 17.3.2015].

Outram, S. (2011). Final Evaluation of the HEFCE-funded Flexible Learning Pathfinder Projects. York, England: The Higher Education Academy (HEA). Available at: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/node/3527 [Accessed 17.3.2015].