Sprinting in hindsight: what we learned from validating university programmes at pace

Engaging stakeholders from the university community and beyond in academic programme design, redesign and validation is challenging. But when the university wants to make a swift transition to block delivery mid-year, ready to welcome new students on this mode the following autumn, the challenge becomes even greater. De Montfort University adopted Design Sprint methodology as part of its Education 2030 strategy, to switch to sequential block delivery for the start of the 2022-23 academic year.

• Design a student-centred curriculum for dynamic learning
• If I redesigned UK higher education, I would…
• Block to the future: why block scheduling has taken so long to catch on

The transformation has been swift yet effective. Between November 2021 and February 2022, the university validated 76 programmes to align with block design. Six months later, the team had validated a further 18 programmes, predominately for undergraduates and due to commence delivery from the start of the 2022-23 academic year. By the end of the year, in summer 2023, De Montfort had validated 68 2023-24-commencing programmes, the majority of which were postgraduate taught provision.

Sprinting to academic quality

When validating almost 100 programmes in under 10 months, the quality of the outcome naturally comes into question. Within the university, the Department for Academic Quality worked with colleagues across all faculties to review the existing processes for programme validation and adapt these into approaches that could be used at pace. In doing so, we consolidated many steps into few, challenging some of these processes. At all stages of development and the approval events themselves, we considered external quality assurance requirements and consulted external advisers. Crucially, we viewed the processes though a critical lens to ensure that the curriculum in development could be robustly challenged.

The team held many approval events virtually, providing an opportunity to engage stakeholders in consultation and decision-making. The students’ union was able to contribute as student panel members, and support and operations between the university and students’ union improved as a result. We provided guidance for validation panel members, with colleagues embracing the opportunity to participate in panels, enhancing their understanding of the university and contributing to wider citizenship activity.

Following the approval of new programmes, several areas of good practice emerged:

1. Curriculum design (including alignment with the university’s strategy and vision)
2. Student support initiatives aligned to the curriculum and delivery
3. Employability embedded in the curriculum, informed by industry engagement.

Having validated these programmes, the university has hardly paused for breath. We were aware from past experiences, sector requirements and changing views from students and employers that we needed to remain mindful of potential barriers to success, as well as considering “the art of the possible”. One of these potential barriers ended up providing us with an opportunity to explore our capabilities – we found a way to be agile in our approach to modifying the curriculum, learning from the first phases of delivery in the new block approach. For example, team teaching in the first block allows students to meet and engage with a range of academic staff who act as representatives for the university, and assessment timing needs planning within and between the blocks to avoid bunching for students and staff.

The university introduced a more flexible curriculum modification process, allowing for the lessons we took from early experiences to inform curriculum reshaping as required. Although used infrequently, this process made it possible to change assessment design and reorder blocks more efficiently, improving the student experience.

How Design Sprints improved quality

Focusing on the outcome rather than the process led to a more agile and efficient programme approval process. Using Design Sprint methodology permitted more flexibility, challenging the lengthy systems currently seen across the sector without reducing the quality of the curriculum design and programme. Developing a leaner process for later curriculum modifications ensured that changes could be made to reflect the needs of industry and society, while also encouraging educators to adopt a more innovative and reflexive approach to programme design.

Across all approval event outcomes, we saw more commendations and fewer conditions than under the traditional process. Academic reviewers, external advisers and industry experts highlighted the value of bringing together stakeholders in order to develop a curriculum to help address the question of what a graduate of this programme would need to know and do. Critical issues such as digital literacy, sustainability, decolonisation, academic scholarship and career development were embedded within the curriculum through the active engagement of relevant stakeholders during Design Sprints.

Looking at the hopes for the future in “Sprint to the finish: redesigning university programme validation”, we recognise opportunities for enhanced stakeholder engagement during the curriculum design process. We’ve sought to rationalise our approval processes for new programmes to support agile development, significantly reducing time from initial concepts to validation and ultimately delivery. The high number of positive commendations recorded during sprint validations has encouraged academic teams to develop a more quality enhancement-led approach.

At De Montfort University, the former traditional process is no more: the Design Sprint is here to stay.

Zoë Allman is associate dean (academic) in the Faculty of Computing, Engineering and Media; Leanne de Main is deputy dean in the Faculty of Business and Law and associate pro vice-chancellor in Education, both at De Montfort University.