1. Our aims
This blog aims first to assess the learning opportunities that the new pedagogical philosophy of the “connected curriculum” may offer students. We also want to reflect on how curriculum design may facilitate these opportunities. We hope that our reflections will invite conversations on putting this new philosophy into the practice of postgraduate learning and teaching. To achieve these aims, we first summarise our experience with designing a connected curriculum. After this practical background, we briefly turn to the methodological background before offering lessons learned and looking ahead.
1. Our story: what we did and why
We, the authors of this blog, represent most of the team that designed and delivered a new module preparing MA International Business students at the University of Greenwich for their final dissertation. Let’s call this module M01 (not its real module code). Before M01 was first offered to students in January 2021, a single module M02 (not its real module code) prepared both MA and MBA International Business students for the dissertation. The reasons for the departmental decision to separate the two modules (and their respective programmes) included a willingness to better prepare MA International Business students for an academic career (e.g. by helping their progression to studies at MPhil and PhD level).
In designing M01, we sought to tackle some formidable learning and teaching challenges – shared by more than a postgraduate programme – by embracing the philosophy of the “connected curriculum”. Developed at UCL over the last 5 years, the concept of “connected curriculum” is now being promoted at the University of Greenwich as a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to research-based learning (Marie, 2021). Connected curriculum does in fact view the student’s own research and inquiry as an act of learning. It also puts student-staff partnerships – with students taking part in the formation of communities of learning – at the centre of teaching and learning (Carnell and Fung, 2017; Tong et al., 2018; Davies and Pachler, 2018). Table 1 shows how we moved from the need to tackle specific learning and teaching challenges to taking inspiration from tenets of the “connected curriculum” philosophy and responding to these challenges by redesigning M01 relative to M02.
Table 1. Responses to the learning and teaching challenges faced in designing M01
| Learning & teaching challenges faced in designing M01 | Key tenets of the “connected curriculum” philosophy | Changes in curriculum design from M01 to M02 |
| International students experience cultural barriers in UK HE | Research is an act of learning | Students provide peer feedback in 4 formative Moodle workshops |
| Many MA students’ educational background is not in social science | Students need to form communities of learning | Formative group task: research the purpose of dissertations in UK HE |
| Barriers to understanding the requirements of a dissertation | Student-staff partnerships are central to teaching and learning | Formative individual task: outline of the research proposal |
| Difficulties with critical thinking and independent research | Formative group task: how to align methods and research questions? | |
| Lack of familiarity with social theorising | Formative individual task: first draft of the research proposal | |
| Limited knowledge of international business theory | Summative task: 1,000 words research outline (20% weight) | |
| Summative task: 10,000 words dissertation (80% weight) | ||
| Two detailed guidance notes on developing the summative tasks |
At a first glance, the “connected curriculum” is tailored to meet the learning objectives of students taking the M01 module. In fact, the view of research as an act of learning helps students take a hands-on approach to learning the craft of independent research. Also, by nurturing networked relations between students and staff, the connected curriculum helps overcome the cultural and educational barriers experienced by many international postgraduate students. The introduction of the 4 formative tasks listed in Table 1 aimed to help M01 students to form communities of learning (relative to the design of M02 where exposition had a more prominent role as a teaching strategy). Changing the research outline from a formative task (in the case of M02) to a summative assessment sought to stress the importance of developing a research question and encourage M01 students to take ownership of their journey as researchers at an earlier stage. Last but not least, the provision of additional detailed (written) guidance on developing the two summative tasks was meant to strengthen the partnership between students and tutors. The idea was to give students extra directions after asking them to investigate the fundamentals of dissertation writing.
2. Methodological background
With this blog, we want to reflect on what went well and what could have gone better, particularly as regards the adoption of the “connected curriculum”. At the time of writing, the dissertation is still due for submission and this limits our ability to access quantitative data in the form of a final set of grades for our first cohort. We therefore rely heavily on the ethnographic observation of: student engagement (comparing the engagement of M01 students and that of the MA students that attended M02 before January 2021, as well as engagement across different M01 tutorial groups); learning outcomes (comparing attainment across different M01 tutorial groups); and learning interactions (evaluating student-to-student, student-to-staff and staff-to-staff relationships).
In interpreting our observations, we take inspiration from Margaret Archer’s (1995) view of social practices (e.g. learning and teaching) as embedded in social relations that take place in space and time. This understanding can be extended to account for the ways in which institutions (including the design of a module) enable and constrain the strategies of actors (e.g. the learning strategies of students) and how actors attempt to strategically change institutions (Jessop, 2005).
3. Lessons on teaching to fly and the practice of the “Connected Curriculum”
Preliminary findings point to the merits of the “connected curriculum”, despite a less than ideal teaching environment (the module was delivered entirely online due to Covid-19 restrictions). They also relate to the importance of time in building a solid rapport between staff and students. Furthermore, they suggest that peer-to-peer learning should not be confined to student-to-student relations and extend to staff-to-staff relations. Finally, our analysis highlights the importance of aligning the design and delivery of other modules in the programme so that students are better prepared to engage with theory as they attend M01 tutorials for the first time. Table 2 shows the connection between our empirical observations and our findings.
Table 2. Delivering M01: empirical observations and interpretation of findings
| Empirical observations | Interpretation of findings |
| M01 tutors who have delivered M02 tutorials for MA students (and tutorials in an introductory module on academic research methods) observe higher levels of engagement in M01 tutorials. | This improvement can be explained by the introduction in M01 of four formative tasks (relative to the design of M02). In fact, the new tasks led students to respond to specific challenges. |
| M01 tutors who have delivered M02 tutorials for MA students observe improved learning outcomes in M01 research outlines. | The summative nature of the research outline in M01 induced students to engage more seriously with the task (relative to M02, where the task is formative). |
| The only M01 tutor (and module leader) who had no prior engagement with the cohort observes lower levels of engagement and attainment relative to other M01 tutorial groups. | The lower levels of engagement and attainment may be explained by the limited time available to develop the relationship between tutor and tutees. |
| The module leader has been able to learn from the other M01 tutors, thus compensating for the relatively limited familiarity with the cohort. | M01 students have not only benefitted from peer learning opportunities but also, indirectly, from staff-to-staff partnerships. |
| M01 tutors observe that the students’ lack of familiarity with social theory and theories of international business persists despite the resources made available to students. | M01 students would benefit from being exposed to questions of theory since joining the introductory module on academic research in the previous term. |
5. Conclusions: where do we go from here?
For international postgraduate students, learning the craft of independent research can be compared to learning to fly, not only for its challenges but also its rewards. In this blog, we show the merits of the “connected curriculum” in overcoming these challenges and making these rewards achievable. We also suggest that the key to learning to fly with the “connected curriculum” is in strengthening student-staff, student-to-student, and staff-to-staff partnerships; and to do so by thinking about how these partnerships evolve in space as well as in time. We conclude by calling the communities of practice involved in postgraduate learning and teaching – students and scholars alike – to contribute to this important conversation.
Blog Authors
Dr Emanuele Lobina
Principal Lecturer
Department of Economics and International Business
Greenwich Business School
Alexandra Griazina
Teaching Fellow
Department of Economics and International Business
Greenwich Business School
Charles Nwaogwugwu
Teaching Fellow
Department of Economics and International Business
Greenwich Business School
Ronald Gibson
Teaching Fellow
Department of Economics and International Business
Greenwich Business School
References
Archer, M.S., 1995. Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Carnell, B. and Fung, D. eds., 2017. Developing the higher education curriculum: Research-based education in practice. London: UCL Press.
Davies, J.P. and Pachler, N., 2018. Teaching and learning in higher education: perspectives from UCL. London: UCL IOE Press.
Fung, D., 2017. A connected curriculum for higher education. London: UCL Press.
Jessop, B., 2005. Critical realism and the strategic-relational approach. New Formations, 56: 40-53.
Marie, J., 2021. “Connect Curriculum”. Presentation at the Business and Economics Education (BEE) session on “Exploring the links between research and teaching: The Connected Curriculum and the Self-Study method” (Department of Economics and International Business, Business Faculty, University of Greenwich, 31st March 2021).
Tong, V.C.H., Standen, A., and Sotiriou, M., 2018. Shaping Higher Education with Students–ways to connect Research and Teaching. London: UCL Press.