This week I am tasked with mapping the Attributes, Practices & Skills data from our Pyramids onto the Vitae Research Development Framework (RDF) for each Faculty Learning Community (FLC).
First steps were easy, and a blast from the past, as I grabbed my daughters compass kit and set to re-create my own blank version of the RDF ‘descriptors’ diagram. One circle, four Domains – and within each Domain, three sub-domains. Like drawing a pizza really!
Compass kit neatly away and the hard work began. Returning to each FLC Pyramid, the Attribute, Practices and Skills statements were mapped over to the appropriate Domain and sub-domain. This took time, but in reality was quite a straightforward task, probably due to the careful way the data was collected from the start. The language, concepts and meaning behind the statements fitted well to the Domains.
As I started on the second FLC it became obvious how the mapping of the data felt so different with each Faculty. What an incredibly fascinating process! As the mapping for the last FLC came to an end I couldn’t wait to scan over the four diagrams to assess the obvious and not-so-obvious differences and similarities. Where are most of the statements mapped? Which Domains and sub-domains featured really poorly in the FLC data? Why?
On top of this level of mapping I also decided it was a golden opportunity to map the perceptions of priority onto the statements. I identified and highlighted those statements that had been given a priority 1 or 2 by the FLCs. What would this show us?
I can’t give too much away before the beginning of next week, but what I can tell you is that there are significant patterns and differences across the FLCs. Cognitive Ability is significant across all FLCs, whilst Engagement and Impact of research appears consistently low.
All will be revealed in good time…