Project Overview - Findings
Year One
Overall, the literature review provided some answers to each of the six research questions. In general terms, the examination of collaborative models reported in the scholarly literature stimulated creative thought within the committee, which contributed to the development of the model and toolkit. For example, toolkit elements were developed in several areas, such as leadership practices and change management processes, the role of teams, and communities of practice.
(Refer to Research and Development-Literature Review)
In general, the stakeholder interviews contributed to the committee’s understanding in two areas: 1) best collaboration practices, and 2) how to implement a Curriculum Commons Model. The stakeholders also illuminated the current state (driving and constraining factors at all levels across the post-secondary system) and provided their perspective on the future state (vision for the post-secondary system). Moreover, the committee received practical suggestions about how to move forward with the legal framework (MOU) for the project, and how to establish a framework (Collaboration Agreement) to implement the model and toolkit following the project.
Overall, the leadership shown by the membership of the Curriculum Commons Steering Committee was critical and pivotal to the success of the project. The commitment to the project and, in the spirit of collaboration, the dialogue at the committee meetings directly yielded the following:
- Developed operational definition of curriculum commons
- Developed statement of values and guiding principles
- Developed statement of rationale: Why collaborate?
- Expanded scope of curriculum collaboration and increased awareness of communities of practice
- Developed and approved Project Memorandum of Understanding
- Promoted the incorporation of the Curriculum Quality Assurance services as a unique feature of the model and toolkit
- Developed the legal framework to support the co-ownership model
These outcomes were achieved through dialogue at face-to-face meetings that were characterized by consensus decision making. From a leadership perspective, the members developed a shared vision. There were two changes in membership over the first year; however, the committee members were able to move forward with minimal disruption. In summary, the face-to-face meeting process had resource implications, but was a significant factor in the success of the first year of the project.
Project Manager/Researcher
The Project Manager/Researcher (PM/R) was contracted for a two-year term. During the first year of the project, the PM/R focused on the literature review and stakeholder interviews (see Phase One Report). The PM/R also prepared meeting agendas and circulated meeting notes (action minutes) to the Committee and to the Vice-Presidents, Academic at each collaborating institution. The PM/R also prepared PowerPoint presentations (i.e., literature review, project status overview). Overall, the PM/R provided leadership and logistical support that contributed to the success of the first year of the project.
(Refer to Research and Development: Phase One Report: Project Manager/Researcher, page 4)
Resource Persons
During the first year of the project, three key resource persons contributed to the project:
- Barb Armstrong, Instructional Designer, Keyano College (principles of successful collaboration)
- Diane Reid, Librarian, NorQuest College (literature search)
- Loralee Nichols, Contract Manager, Lakeland College (legal and contracts management)
These resource people made a positive contribution to year one.