accrediting university teachers: contrasting the intended and ... · web viewtitle accrediting...

Accrediting university teachers: Contrasting the intended and experienced curriculum.

James J Watters and Carmel M Diezmann [email protected] & [email protected]

Faculty of EducationQueensland University of Technology

Brisbane, AUSTRALIA

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Glamorgan, 14-17 September 2005

This paper is a reflective analysis of the philosophy, focus and outcomes of a Graduate Certificate in Higher Education (GCHE) course implemented in a large Australian University. The reflections of both the coordinator and a student provide salient information about the educational and corporate value of the course. Formal and informal evaluation collected by the coordinator suggests the course provides a rich educational experience providing several outcomes. The course enables students to benchmark their practices against advocated practices; it provides a theoretical foundation to explain certain practices; it extends the skills and knowledge of students and provides credibility through qualifications. At a local level, the experiences of one academic provide insights into the particular benefits and relevance of the course for her professional growth. Collectively, these perspectives provide the means for exploring the alignment of the intended and experienced curriculum and provide insights to the accreditation of university teachers nationally and internationally.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Watters & Diezmann: Accrediting University Teachers

BackgroundIf universities are to remain relevant in a knowledge society, they must not just be sites of knowledge production but also be effective knowledge disseminators though their service and teaching activities. Contemporary society is seeking innovative, self-directed, and creative individuals who can contribute effectively to society (Candy, 2000). Central to this goal is the quality of teaching. Thus all institutions of higher and further eduction must enhance the status and quality of the teaching and learning experiences they provide for students in the context of a more market-oriented environment of mass higher education.

Attempts to define, recognise and enhance the quality of teaching in higher education gained momentum during the 1990s following Boyer’s (1990) conceptualisation of the Scholarship of Teaching (Aylett & Gregory, 1996; Ramsden, Margetson, Martin, & Clark, 1995). These ideas illuminated the scholarly legitimacy of teaching in higher education and elevated the debate advocating formalised teaching qualifications among university teachers. Given that teaching academics are usually selected on the basis of their disciplinary knowledge and not that of teaching qualifications, formal teacher education and qualification has been argued to be an essential aspect of academic staff development (Daly, 1994; Gaff & Lambert, 1996; Jones, 2003; Travis, Outlaw, & Reven, 2001). In response, courses designed for university teaching staff have proliferated in a number of countries.

This paper analyses the philosophy, focus and outcomes of one Graduate Certificate in Higher Education (GCHE) course that was introduced early in the 1990s in a large Australian university. The paper is written in the spirit of reflective practice and analyses the development of the course and the extent to which it addresses the needs of teaching academics in higher education through the voices of the course coordinator and a graduating student. This course is designed to meet the needs of those teaching in Higher Education and related tertiary education settings.

MethodologyLearning through reflection is deemed an important tool to analyse deliberate human action, and hence, forms a methodological approach to understanding practice. Several strategies have been proposed to guide reflective practice and much has been written about the models and problems associated with reflection (Boud & Walker, 1998; Hatton & Smith, 1995; Moon, 2000; Zeichner, 1986). This study draws upon the notions of Reflection-on-Action (Schön, 1983) to provide an account of the role played by a formalised course for teaching in higher education. In particular, we adopt the frameworks of Kreber (1999) and Watson and Wilcox (2000). Kreber’s framework provides a structure, which emphasises what should be reflected upon. Drawing on the work of Mezirow (1991) he proposes that individuals who learn about teaching engage in content, process and premise reflection. Content reflection in this context helps us describe our beliefs about what we know and should be teaching. In essence, we are asking ourselves whether the course and what constitutes the body of knowledge that informs the course is appropriate. By engaging in process reflection, we seek to validate what we do. To achieve this, we focus on collecting data from students on how they engaged in the course, and the professional benefits and outcomes for them. Finally, engaging in premise reflection requires us to reconceptualise the issues and justify the approaches taken or suggest alternatives. Juxtaposed on this approach is Watson and Wilcox’s (2000) framework for reflection that also encapsulates three elements. Firstly, they describe reflection-on-action in terms of “quick reading”, which provides a wholistic impression of the issue. Secondly, they argue for a “zooming in”, which provides a close analysis of a particular aspect of the issue. Finally, they advocate a “zooming out” to contextualise and critique the issue, and suggest changes.

1


The reflections are provided from the perspective of the coordinator (JJW) of the course who has taught within the course for seven years and has coordinated for four years. The focus participant is a recent graduate of the course whose disciplinary background is education.

A three-phase approach to data collection and analysis is used in this paper to accommodate Kreber (1999) and Watson and Wilcox (2000)’s frameworks. Phase 1 focuses on Content. This phase comprises (a) a “quick read” of the literature; (b) “zooming in” through a document analysis, feedback from university stakeholders and course participants, descriptions of artefacts, and reflections from the focus participant; and (c) a “zooming out”, which contextualises the emergent content issues. Phase 2 focuses on Process. This phase consists of (a) a “quick read” of course delivery approaches and course alignment with institutional priorities; (b) “zooming in” encompassing a description of university processes and alignment of the course with these, a description of course participants, and feedback from university stakeholders and course participants, and a reflection from the focus participant; and (c) a “zooming out”, which contextualises the emergent process issues. Collectively, Phases 1 and Phase 2 provide a situational analysis or reality check of the accreditation of university teachers in our institution. Phase 3 focuses on Premises and presents a summary of the status quo as a prelude to the articulation of a set of premises related to the advancement of knowledge about the accreditation of university teachers. This phase is also reported at three levels, namely, a “quick read”, “zooming in” and “zooming out”.

Participants There are three types of participants in this study. Firstly, there are university stakeholders. This group comprises Assistant Deans of Teaching and Learning from each Faculty, who oversee course development, teaching and quality management within each faculty, and members of a Staff Development Network, who comprise members representing Human Resources Staff Developers, Teaching and Learning Support Services and Information Technology Services. Each of these latter groups is responsible for some aspect of staff training and development, for example, staff induction and career development, use of online teaching facilities and introduction to teaching support mechanisms, and specific technology competencies associated with software applications and specialist hardware. Secondly, there are course participants. These students enrolled in the course between 2002 and 2004. Finally, there is the focus participant (CMD), who enrolled in the course in 2003 and graduated in 2004.

Data Sources The data sources consist of documents, survey responses, written reflections and artefacts. Documents consist broadly of the literature and specifically of Course documentation. Survey Responses were obtained from university stakeholders and course participants. University stakeholders were invited to contribute information related to relevance of the units, value and impact on teaching and learning in various faculties, and how the course might be strengthened. Course participants were sent a questionnaire that addressed issues of relevance, appropriateness, effectiveness and efficiency of the content and delivery processes. The questionnaire included ten open-ended questions some of which comprised specific sub-questions. The full questionnaire was sent to a cohort of students who enrolled in 2002 (n=30) and a shortened questionnaire that focussed on relevance, and appropriateness was sent to those enrolled in 2004 (n=54). Follow-up invitations were sent to students and a book voucher was raffled as an inducement to respond. Written reflections during the course were obtained from the focus participant. She also provided further reflections through her contributions to this paper. Artefacts comprise assignments and publications prepared by the focus participant. Publications are an especially important artefact because they provide evidence that the teacher is fully engaged in the process of scholarship (e.g., Boyer, 1990). That is, the teacher investigates the relevant literature, is reflective about his or her teaching; and contributes to professional thinking through publication.

2


Data analysis The primary focus of the data analysis was to identify emergent themes. The various data sources provided the opportunity to explore these themes. The document analysis encompassed a historical analysis and a contemporary analysis. The historical analysis provides a backdrop to examine the literature that comments on the development and purposes of GCHE type courses. The contemporary analysis explored information from course websites of Australian Universities and provided the details of current practices and scope of content taught. Course materials in the form of Unit Outlines provided a more detailed profile of content and teaching processes. The survey responses provided insight into the key issues identified by University stakeholders and Course participants. The primary focus of the analysis was on the congruence between the intended and experienced curriculum. The written reflections of the focus participant provide an in-depth look at the congruence between the intended and experienced curriculum and one student’s expectations. The artefacts provide an additional insight into the learning of the focus student because they provide a synthesis of the learner’s knowledge.

ReflectionsThe reflection on this course will explore Content, Process and Premises integral to the course using the reflective tool of Watson and Wilcox (2000).

ContentA quick read: In order to reflect on the content and focus of the course we explore four sources of information that provide direction: the historical purpose of universities, the international response to calls for professionalism of teaching, the literature on what constitutes food teaching, and finally, the structure of the course.

The role of universities tends to flow in cycles. In the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries, universities taught the trivium, a curriculum that comprised rhetoric, logic and grammar as the basic preparation for entry into all the professions. The role of the university, right up until the end of the nineteenth century, was to provide a well-rounded education for those people (usually men) who could afford it. Through a study of these areas students were able to pursue a career in the clergy, education or law. The English and, more particularly, the Scottish model of university education became the basis of Australian universities. In this model, universities provided college accommodation for their students, who were ascribed a tutor responsible for their learning and offered the “traditional” disciplines of medicine, science, arts, law and engineering. Similarly, the first American universities were largely concerned with teaching and focused on educating their students for future civic and religious leadership (Beattie, 2000). However by the 19th Century a research orientation had grown up in the German universities, which influenced those scholars who spent their formative years there. Post World War II, a dramatic change in academic life occurred. The focus on scientific research and training in universities increased substantially and scholars began to identify their research and teaching with their disciplines rather than with the academy as a whole. As in most western countries, university education has undergone unprecedented expansion enabling a greater number of people to attend university many as mature aged students. In Australia, numbers of students has escalated over fifty years from 30 000 in 1955 to close to one million in 2005. Accompanying this expansion has been increased policy intervention in the operation of universities by Federal Government. In the Australian context, Universities — almost all of which are public institutions — are established under state government legislations. However, federal intervention in the management of Australian universities has become pervasive in the last 20 years influenced by international neo-liberal principles (Marginson, 2003) and implemented through fiscal policies.

A major area of policy focus in the past decade has been on enhancing the quality of teaching in higher education. What has been done to achieve this goal? In the United States Lederman and

3


Niess (1999) cite one W. B Pitkin who, writing in 1909 in the Popular Science Monthly, argued for specialist doctoral training in education for university and college teachers. By the 1990s training of graduate teaching assistants in educational principles had become widespread (Druger, 1997; Wulff & Austin, 2004) and indeed includes higher studies as Doctor of Arts (Travis, Outlaw, & Reven, 2001). In Germany and other European countries, pedagogical training has been aligned with the nature of the institution. Research universities have provided little opportunity for pedagogical training whereas polytechnic colleges have required teaching staff to undertake such training (Leitner, 1998). Although policy declarations appear to favour pedagogical training, the uptake of programs in higher education has been slow. A similar situation existed in Australia in the early 1990s, which prompted strong criticism of Australian universities by Ramsden, Margetson, Martin, and Clarke, (1995) who argued that Australian universities needed to enhance the professionalisation of teaching.

We now examine what issues and content should be addressed in such courses. Other than general principles of adult education there is little literature to guide what would constitute worthwhile courses for university teacher training. Reports on quality teaching focus on enhancing student-teacher relationships (Bain, 2004; Sander, Stevenson, King, & Coates, 2000), the capacity to be a good explainer (Soenksen, 1992) or the level of content expertise (Sears, 2002) or strength to manage complexity with confidence (McArdle & Coutts, 2003). In terms of teacher knowledge, we can extrapolate from the work of Shulman (1987) to argue personal expertise across content and pedagogy. However, few consider broader discourses and actions about educational practices (Nicoll & Harrison, 2003). Perhaps one exception is the rationale provided by Rowland (1999) who attempts to argue that the guiding theoretical framework draws upon the individual understandings of teaching and learning in higher education. Each practitioner brings with him or her perspectives that are drawn from their own disciplines in an attempt to transfer to the context of educational practice. Given the relative lack of deep understanding of educational theory, practitioners operate from within their comfort zone co-creating educational theory applicable to their contexts.

Although many formal teacher professional development courses emerged during the 1990s, evidence of the effectiveness of these formal programs is limited. Some suggest that they do increase scores on learning experience questionnaires of academics who have had full training (Coffey & Gibbs, 2000). Uptake has been slow possibly because, as Macdonald (2001) has pointed out, courses are problematic for managers and teaching staff alike, “as they require expensive time release, and/or inconvenient disruption to teaching and research commitments” (p. 154). He also critiques short courses endorsing their ineffectiveness but suggesting they satisfy the need to be seen to be doing something. Clearly, if staff are to provide richer input into the lives of the students they teach, universities need to provide appropriate courses and staff need to engage in learning experiences beyond their specialist disciplinary knowledge. Although some advocate planning such courses around deficits (Martínez, Gros, & Romaña, 1998) others are advocating community or collaborative learning strategies (Macdonald, 2001; Prushiek, McCarty, & Mcintyre, 2001 ).

Writing at a time when formal courses were being developed, Ryan (1996) described the mixed motivation for these courses:

4


The Graduate Certificates in many Australian universities grew out of these shorter courses, and, I would suggest, from mixed motives: a recognition that staff operating in a culture which revolves around the possession of paper qualifications might prefer their staff development activities recognised in an accreditation; that a focussed course which blended a theoretical component with practice would induce long-term change more than one-off workshops; that the peer group approach would permeate institutional culture via a ripple effect by bringing together staff from across the organisation; and perhaps more strategically, to bolster the academic credibility of staff development units with real EFTSU (Equivalent Full-time Student Unit).(p. 1)

There are 39 universities in Australia. All but four offer some graduate certificate course designed to provide formal instruction for academic and professional staff in universities and related to teaching and learning in higher education. This situation contrasts with the US where only 19 institutions were reported to offer similar programs (Travis, et al., 2001). Of the four that do not offer their own course, one has a relationship with another university for its staff to undertake that institution’s course. A summary of the structure, mode of delivery and responsible organisational unit is provided in Table 1. Most courses are highly focussed on teaching and learning in higher education with some scope for broader consideration of teaching in other tertiary settings or educational institutions such as seminaries, or hospitals. The majority of institutions adopt a model comprising four subjects or units of study, delivered through a Faculty of Education, in a face-to-face mode. The model we describe in this paper is similarly a four-unit course delivered through a Faculty of Education but primarily in an online mode with some face-to-face elements.

Table 1: Models of delivery of Graduate Certificate in Higher Education Courses

Number of subjects

comprising course

Number of Institutions adopting model

Organisational unit responsible

for course


Mode of delivery


2 2 Specialist Higher Education Unit

9* Face-to-Face 17

3 5 Faculties of Education or equivalent

21 Online 3

4 25 Combined specialist unit and Faculty

3 Mixed online/face-to-face

15

5 1 Other faculties (e.g. engineering and health)

2

6 1 External body 18 1

*Note: In most instances the Degree is conferred through a Faculty of Education or similar. The information in this table was drawn from Course Websites as of April 2005.

Zooming in: In describing and analysing what is happening at a more detailed level, we focus on (a) the Course offered at Queensland University of Technology [QUT], (b) feedback from University stakeholders; (c) feedback from Course participants; and (d) reflections and artefacts of a focus participant.

A. Course: QUT is one of the largest universities in the country with over 40000 students. It offers courses in the professions from Law to Nursing as well as Science, Engineering, Information Technology and the Creative Industries. The QUT course’s stated aims are to develop leadership and management skills at an advanced level and to enhance professional standing (Course website:

5


http://olt.qut.edu.au/ED61-HE). Completion of four one-semester units is required. The alignment of these aims with content is difficult to judge given that individual teaching staff adopt and adapt to circumstances. However, examples of the recommended readings and the assessment tasks provide a broad insight into the areas of content addressed in specific units as shown in Table 2. The literature provides limited guidance on what constitutes essential content in these areas.

B. University Stakeholders: One Assistant Dean argued that many older staff saw little relevance in the course. She noted that those older staff who had a very strong discipline focus were sceptical about general teaching approaches and did not accept that “a general approach is transferable across disciplines”. This theme was taken up by another Assistant Dean who argued the importance of ensuring “the course is flexible and integrated into the workplace so that assists staff in what they are doing rather than seen as more work”. A Staff Development Network stakeholder extended theses comments by advocating a broader content base and one that addresses more than issues of teaching and learning. Another echoed the need to align content with contemporary national and institutional policy directions. These themes reinforce a belief that content needs to be closely aligned with the disciplinary styles and experiences of staff and encompass a broad recognition of the professional needs of staff within a university.

C: Course Participants: Feedback from students and stakeholders provided commentary on the value of the content. Most students reflected positively on the course drawing attention to a range of issues, such as the development of a theoretical framework to interpret practice. The relevance of the course to each student’s context was also acknowledged. For example,

The course met all my expectations in terms of providing a theoretical underpinning for my teaching practice and an understanding of the socio-political context in which we must work. It has succeeded in exposing me to a large body of theory which has supported critical reflection and changes in my own teaching practices.I did not expect as much contextual study as there was – but this has turned out the most interesting (emphasis in original).

D. Focus Participant: The fine-grained analysis of the focus participant revealed enhanced conceptual understanding of the units’ content. This is evident in reflections undertaken as part of each unit and publications on four content themes that correspond to the four selected units studied by the participant.

Theme 1: Learning And Teaching In Higher Education (EDN626)This unit encouraged participants to review their own teaching situations and determine how to improve their teaching. The following reflection is an extract from one of the assignments in this unit in which I compared and contrasted my undergraduate and graduate teaching and determined how to improve my postgraduate teaching. Whilst suggesting key issues that impact on teaching in higher education, the background literature also provided a caution that, although teaching and learning are related, an improvement in teaching does not necessarily result in a corresponding improvement in learning.

6


Table 2: Alignment of Course aims with Core Content and Assessment TasksUnit and Aims Assessment Example Readings

EDN626: Learning And Teaching In Higher EducationAcquire an understanding of, and become, a critically reflective practitioner.

1. A critical review preferred teaching style incorporating literature relevant to your preferred teaching and learning theories.

2. Plan and implement a collaborative action research project

Biggs, J. B. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. Buckingham, England & Philadelphia, PA: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

EDN627: Contexts And Issues In Higher EducationAnalyse current issues in higher or post-secondary education through advanced study and demonstrate an advanced level of knowledge in the area of higher education and post-secondary education.

1. A reflective portfolio addressing contemporary press materials, policy documents, commentary and media reports of issues of concern to higher education.

2. An issues paper in which you undertake an analysis of an issue and produce a reasoned set of recommendations or conclusions for further

Jarvis, P. (2001) Universities and corporate universities: The higher learning industry in global society, London: Kogan Page.

EDN628:Postgraduate Research Supervision Acquire an understanding of, and become, a critically reflective practitioner.

1. Essay task based on an interview of an experienced supervisor. 1500-2000 word critical analysis and reflection.

2. Report on a research activity that you have designed, planned and implemented to investigate your own and/or your faculty's approach to postgraduate supervision.

3. Participate in an online discussion forum

Holbrook, A. & Johnston, S. (Eds.), Supervision of postgraduate research in education, Review of Australian Research in Education, No. 5, Coldstream, Victoria, AARE.

EDN629: Presentation and Delivery Modes in Higher EducationDevelop competencies in applying relevant educational theory to practices.

1. Outline the significant contexts and issues that must be considered in deciding on appropriate delivery modes in further or higher education.

2. Develop a portfolio of Learning Materials that reflects your design, development, implementation and evaluation considerations for a module of work with a student cohort.

Laurillard, D. (2001) Rethinking University Teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology (2nd Ed.). Routledge: London.

EDN630: Higher Education: Curriculum Design, Assessment and EvaluationDevelop a commitment and confidence to being responsive educational leaders who have an understanding of the issues confronting teaching in post-secondary settings.

1. Using a situational analysis as a framework, review the contexts, constructs, pedagogies and practices of a higher education curriculum project with a view to proposing a curriculum renewal project.

2. Design a curriculum renewal project based on sound curriculum thinking, reflection on practice and a critique of the literature in the area.

Mestenhauser, J. & Ellingboe, B. (1998). Reforming the higher education curriculum. Boston: Oryx Press.

7


This critical review has revealed that of my two teaching situations, I am more satisfied with the opportunities for deep learning for my undergraduates than my postgraduates. These student groups are similar in terms of their unit or course content and their presumed capability. However, the substantive difference between these groups is the community orientation. Hence, the establishment of a community ethos amongst postgraduates is where my teaching could be improved. Ramsden (1992) cautions however, that the learner’s reaction to the teaching environment influences but does not cause high quality learning outcomes. Thus, it is to be expected that despite the best efforts of teachers in higher education, student-learning outcomes will not always meet expectations. (See Table 2, EDN626, Assignment Task 1)

This unit also provided the opportunity for me to undertake an Action Research project on a teaching and learning situation of relevance in my context (See Table 2, EDN626, Assignment Task 2). Due to my role to support staff in our Research Centre, I elected to focus on staff learning about grantsmanship. The literature review for this project provided the background for identifying various profiles of researchers and the strategies that should support each of these types of researchers. I have profiled staff and implemented these strategies and am awaiting the outcomes of the 2005 external research grant round to finalise a paper tentatively titled Learning about educators learning about grant writing. Thus, this unit provided me with the means to adopt a more strategic approach to supporting staff learning.

Theme 2: Contexts And Issues In Higher Education (EDN627)The content that was valued in this unit went beyond teaching and learning with which I was already familiar due to my background in school and tertiary education. The following reflection is extracted from a portfolio about this unit, in which I have applied my understanding of the context of higher education to my discipline area.

My reflections have resulted in an appreciation of the role of universities within the educational sector and the broader marketplace, and the substantial implications that flow from the move towards corporatisation of universities. Within my discipline of Education, there is a need for major reform to align Education with the research goal of a modern university. Many existing staff still need to adjust their work roles to reflect their shift to university status rather than teachers’ college status. The limited research by many staff is a glaring problem. These staff may lack the capacity to address this issue; hence, there may be a need to address this issue through differentiated teaching-research workloads. (See Table 2, EDN627, Assignment Task 2)

My thinking about the mismatch between the expectations of contemporary universities and the research capability of staff led me to explore this issue in greater detail in another assignment (See Table 2, EDN627, Assignment Task 1). The outcomes of this exploration are reported in the draft paper titled The contemporary research work role: Implications for Faculties of Education. An acting managerial role has provided me with the opportunity to explore the applicability of my conceptualisations of workload in an authentic context. Following a review of the theory in action and after any modifications, the paper will be submitted for publication.

Theme 3: Postgraduate Research Supervision (EDN628)This unit raised my awareness of various issues in postgraduate supervision. For example, my appreciation of how the higher education context impacts on supervision practices was articulated in one assignment.

My reflection revealed the need to undertake research supervision with an awareness of the political context. It has also provided a rationale for my support of timely completion, and

8


publication during doctoral studies. The identification of the characteristics of Education students has implications for the doctoral curriculum, which should address flexibility in thinking, problem finding skills, autonomous working, and strategies that proactively support female students. My reflections also uncovered the role of history in doctoral supervision and the need for an investigation of the matching of students and supervisors to capitalise on staff expertise. Furthermore, my reflections have highlighted the need for a better understanding of the relationship between members of a supervisory team, and a dilemma that can occur when a more expert supervisor assumes an authoritarian stance. (See Table 2, EDN628, Assignment Task 1)

Another assignment in this unit afforded me the opportunity to focus on a topic of particular interest in postgraduate supervision (See Table 2, EDN628, Assignment Task 2). I selected scholarly writing due to many students’ difficulty in writing theses and journal articles and undertook a retrospective analysis of my higher degree students’ writing capabilities. The content of this unit shifted my thinking about student writing from providing ad hoc support to a clearer perspective on the various types of writing difficulties that students might experience and how to support these students to improve their writing. It also highlighted for me the responsibilities of students in this process. A paper on this study has been accepted for publication (Diezmann, in press).

Theme 4: Higher Education: Curriculum Design, Assessment and Evaluation (EDN630)This was the first unit that I studied and the content was immediately applicable to an innovative research-oriented undergraduate unit that I taught. For example, the following extract from Assignment 2 (See Table 2, EDN630) identifies the applicability of some of the literature from this unit to the undergraduate unit: “Some of the literature sourced for this paper also has relevance for Pathway students. For example, students could use Toohey’s (1999) curriculum frameworks in analysing their own practice [scholarly teachers] or the practices of others [educational researcher]. The content of this unit and the associated assignments also provided the impetus for an article on how to foster research capability in undergraduates and to enhance university teaching through practioner reflection (Diezmann, 2005).

Collectively, the content of these units have provided me with an insight into the higher education context, and how this context impacts on teaching and learning. The units have also equipped me with the skills and self-awareness to continue to improve my own practice.

Zooming out: In standing back and reflecting on the content of the course several features emerge. The course is congruent with national and international directions in providing a well-grounded introduction to teacher education for university academics that blends theory and practice. The intention was (a) to provide a context sensitive program which acknowledges the existing theoretical and disciplinary frameworks of students and (b) to support them to engage in discourse about, not just teaching and learning, but ways of accommodating broader issues of planning and understanding social and political contexts. These intentions appear to have been achieved.

A consideration of the context highlights the almost universal acceptance of the need for accreditation and formal course work in university teaching. On one hand the changing nature of universities and the student body has increased participation by more part-time staff, staff with less teaching experience, and in an economic context where institutions are competing for students and reputation. Many institutions in the UK, Australia, Canada, Europe and the US have responded by instigating post graduate Certificate level courses that focus on the professional development of students through a blend of theory and practical knowledge. Notably absent in the literature is evidence that these courses are either mandatory at a university wide level or departmental level. Indeed, the dominant impression is one of professional engagement at a voluntary level in ways that integrate the formal learning with routine duties.

9


The course described integrates a number of important conceptual areas encompassing, reflective practice, planning and appreciation of political and professional issues.

The underlying theoretical framework has echoes of Gibbons Mode II knowledge (Gibbons, et al. 1994). Developing expertise to teach in higher education requires a recognition that academics draw from their own disciplinary knowledge but will accommodate educational discourse when and where it makes sense and provides best explanations of practice. However, functioning within higher education needs an appreciation of the context and power plays that are beyond the management of individual practitioners.

ProcessIn reflecting on process, we address both the process of delivery and the processes associated with the alignment of the course to institutional priorities.

Quick read: Two issues feature in the delivery of courses on higher education in the Australian context, namely who delivers and how is it delivered. The majority of courses are delivered through a partnership arrangement between a Faculty of Education or equivalent and a specialist staff development or higher education teaching and learning unit. The dimensions of this arrangement are wide with some institutions’ teaching and learning units totally responsible for teaching and the Faculty awarding the qualification to models where the specialist unit is embedded in the Faculty. At QUT, the course has operated for over 10 years. Until 2001, it was delivered by the Academic Staff Development Unit but within the Faculty of Education’s broader Graduate Certificate course. A restructure in 2001, brought the coordination of the course into the faculty but the teaching of at least one unit was still undertaken by a teaching support staff member.

The mode of delivery in the majority of Australian courses involves face-to-face delivery of content with varying degrees of support through distance or on-line facilities. Although a range of subjects is offered, the normal duration of the course in all institutions is 12 months part-time. Changes in technology and in the academic workplace are making it increasingly possible to use on-line learning opportunities for course delivery. However, in a study of 31 institutions across the UK and Australia, Kandlbinder (2003) concluded that in most contexts on-line facilities were considered more useful for the administrative rather than the educational needs of academic staff. Indeed, the majority of courses are primarily face-to-face or adopt a blended approach. The QUT course emerged from a blended face-to-face and distance education mode where paper-based materials were sent to students to a blended on-line model towards the end of the 1990s. Indeed, the course pioneered online delivery strategies at the institution. It has subsequently moved to essentially an online course with negotiated and infrequent face-to-face meetings. This model has appealed to one other institution which has negotiated to support its staff undertake the QUT course. A number of staff from a range of institutions enrol in the course suggesting that the online model has appeal to some academics.

The QUT course is aligned it with the Master of Education to enable students to receive credit for continued study. Approximately 10% of students have completed units within the Graduate Certificate Course and articulated to the Masters of Education. A similar number of students enrolled in the Master of Education have chosen Higher Education Strand.

Zooming in: A more intensive read of the Course and processes adopted is provided by (a) student demographics, (b) assessment practices, and (c) feedback from University stakeholders; (d) feedback from Course participants; and (e) reflections and artefacts of a focus participant.

A. Student Demographics: At any one time, approximately 25 students are enrolled in one or more of the units making up the Course. The bulk of students are drawn from staff working in higher

10


education. An arrangement exists with the University of South Australia which sponsors staff. Enrolments annually from University of South Australia [Uni SA] are approx 10. Staff enrol from a range of Universities including University of Queensland, Griffith, Canberra and the University of the Sunshine Coast as well as from TAFE, and Hospital Training Groups. Up to 40% of QUT staff who participate are part-time, sessional teaching staff. A small number (2-3) are library staff from QUT or Uni SA. However, the bulk of students would appear to come from Engineering, Nursing, Health Sciences, Science and Business. Participation by Faculty of Education staff is relatively low. At some Universities, including QUT, the course is supported by a Bursary which is available on a semester basis to any staff member, full-time or sessional, engaged in teaching on the recommendation of their Head of School. The clients for such courses are diverse. Students range from highly experienced teachers to novice sessional staff seeking induction into the specific structures and practices of a particular institution. In tandem, students range from those with educational qualification in non-tertiary settings to those without any formal educational qualifications.

B. Assessment Practices: If we assume that assessment is aligned with the aims of the course then the assessment strategies should provide both a sense of content but more significantly should contribute to and represent the processes of learning endorsed by the course designers. The social and educational assumptions underlying student learning should be manifested in the assessment practices (Havnes, 2002). As shown in Table 2, the assessment practices within each unit are aligned with the unit aims and the assessment tasks and draw heavily on reflection and scholarly examination of existing practices of participants affirming the emphasis on praxis. Throughout the course, the assessment activities engage students in deep learning through the articulation of practices and perspectives and reflection on these, critical reviews of the alignment between theory and practice and planning informed by the literature and action research.

C. University Stakeholders: Response from the Assistant Deans of Teaching recognised the role of the course in terms of supporting beginning staff and endorsed efforts to ensure these staff participated but highlighted the need to ensure the course integrated into the normal work practices of staff. Extended responses from members of the Staff Development network focussed not surprisingly on structural and procedural features of the course arguing for greater integration with the suite of staff continuing professional development programs that are oriented at skill and career development.

D. Course Participants: The response rate to a questionnaire for both surveyed cohorts was approximately 24% despite follow-up requests. The distribution of responses is shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Distribution of ResponsesLevel of Employment 2002 2004Part-time or sessional staff (tutors) 3 3Lecturer A 0 1Lecturer B 4 0Lecturer C 3 1Assoc Professor/Professor 1 1Non University (e.g. Technical college) 1 1Professional staff (e.g. librarians) 1 1

Emerging in questionnaire responses to two questions that probed reasons for enrolling and professional value in participating in the course were two themes. Firstly, the overwhelming response (>80%) involved comments that reflected a broad sense of becoming a professional

11


teacher. The processes worked in the sense that broad and tangible outcomes that impacted on professionalism were acknowledged. Some representative responses included:

Improve professional skills as a lecturer. To professionalise my approach to teaching and learning. Greater professional credibility. Confidence. Knowledge of teaching. Interest in education. Developing theoretical frameworks. Recognition about how out of step my staff are with contemporary thinking “Feel Qualified now” – enhanced my feelings of value to the University. Deeper understanding of T&L theory and philosophy.

Secondly, most respondents acknowledged that they gained knowledge about aspects of teaching in higher education that had immediate impact:

Improve my classes. Maximising effectiveness of students for different groups. Practical “how-to” type knowledge about various topics. Accomplished a dream in developing online module. Skills to undertake the assessment of change to teaching practices. Developed skills in action research and online delivery.

In contributing comments on weaknesses in the course delivery, several participants highlighted issues related to the balance of print materials and online support. In some instances, print materials were not provided as the unit was heavily dependent on online modes of delivery whereas in others the expectation to use online practices was not reciprocated by teaching staff.

E. Focus Participant: The processes of course delivery and alignment are addressed in turn.

The course delivery I experienced was an amalgam of print materials, online materials and interactions supplemented by limited face-to-face interaction. This variety in delivery affords the opportunity to reflect on the advantages and disadvantages of these delivery modes.

The supply of a semester’s worth of print materials provided a great deal of flexibility in terms of scheduling study and assignment work. However, this required substantial self-discipline to monitor timelines and set aside sufficient study time. In a couple of units, face-to-face meetings were scheduled early in the semester. These meetings provided an opportunity to meet the teaching staff, which created ease in contacting these staff via email when necessary later in the semester. However, the value of meeting with other students was limited because opportunities for social learning were not generally a core part of the units. In one unit, there was a requirement for contributions to an online discussion forum and some students’ names became familiar through their entries. Although this could be conceived as online community, the contributions seemed to be to meet unit requirements rather than to engage with peers about topic of interest. The face-to-face sessions typically focussed on procedural aspects of the unit and went through the information contained in print or electronic materials. This was somewhat frustrating for those who had read this material prior to the face-to-face meeting. Thus, there is a need to explore how to capitalise on delivery modes to enhance learner benefit rather than use these as alternative modes for disseminating the same information. Additionally, there is a need for a greater awareness that the modes of delivery provide models of contemporary practice in action. In survey feedback on the Course, I highlighted this point: “As this (course) is intended for those who are wanting education

12


qualifications or upgrading their qualifications, it is essential that the course provides exemplary online learning opportunities”.

The processes of the Course included alignment with University goals. This alignment process was evident from the assessment tasks. Reflection in various guises was overwhelmingly the dominant practice across the units (See Table 2). This practice was most effective when coupled with a product of personal value. For example, I valued reflections that provided the impetus for a scholarly article much more highly than reflections that were solely designed for inclusion in a portfolio. The former was valued over the latter because in publishing an article there is a need to engage with the literature at a substantial level, reflections are utilised to generate new knowledge, and thinking can be refined from reviewer feedback. Hence, a reflective task that commences with an assignment and is translated into an assignment fosters deep engagement, involves other professionals and through the review process extends the time length for thinking about the issue. Concomitantly, there is the satisfaction of contributing to the professional literature.

The assessment also engaged students in a series of learning experiences. However, the diversity of students and their varying levels of expertise and interests provides a challenge of how to meet the needs of all students. A particular difficulty, I experienced as a student was learning solely from traditional forms of text. In the Information Age, this is highly restrictive as an information source and presentation medium. I was not excluded from utilising non-textual information sources, and benefited substantially when I was able to incorporate these as learning activities. For example, in the Portfolio assessment item in the Contexts and Issues in Higher Education unit (See Table 2) I included a review of political cartoons. These were a valid information source because cartoons provide a useful indicator of the general public’s view about various issues with the humour directed towards paradoxes, what is contradictory, fears, problems, pretentiousness and absurdities (Hutchinson, 1984). Thus, cartoons capture the essence of an issue at a particular point in time. Additionally, I included a review of the impact of the higher education context through using the video “Facing the Music” (Film Australia, 2001). This documentary provided a human account of the impact of budget cuts within a university department over a period of time. Through this vicarious experience, I was better able to envision how policy changes can directly impact on the daily life of university teachers. These examples suggest that the processes that the learner engages deserve at least as much attention as the content. Although this Course is substantive from content perspective, a further iteration of the Course could include greater attention to the processes in which the learner engages. A focus on the importance of effective pedagogical practices in this Course would mirror the contemporary focus on the quality of pedagogical practices in schooling.

Zooming out: The extent to which a course achieves its goals is determined by the faithfulness of the implementation. Although alignment with institutional goals appears to be acknowledged, issues emerge with the implementation. QUT is a multi-campus institution, which imposes severe limitations on the delivery of face-to-face sessions through which participants can develop social relationships and build knowledge through free exchange of ideas and practices. Thus the on-line mode of delivery provided a practical solution to an environmental constraint. This also provided an advantage to some students who participate in the course from other universities and from offshore placement. The on-line flexibility also accommodates the needs of academic staff who often have to travel beyond their institution and overseas. The courseware management system supporting online learning has incorporated into it a variety of communication devices such as chat rooms, discussion forums, and email lists as well as devices to support learning through the combination of multimedia resources, links to websites, and databases for literature resources.

The comment from the focus participant that the course should mirror quality pedagogical practices is highly pertinent and clearly an area that is underdeveloped. Similar comments extracted from the

13


surveys also highlighted limitations in the way technology was being used. In part, this problem stemmed from the in-experience of some of the teaching staff with online pedagogical practices.

PremiseThe assumptions underpinning the delivery of GCHE at this institution, and more broadly, is that formal study and qualifications are necessary to ensure quality of educational experiences for tertiary students taught by academic staff.

Quick Read: In this study, we have not demonstrated that undergraduate teaching is indeed impacted upon at all by the level of qualification or training of staff. Data from research in school sectors would suggest that the more pedagogically qualified the teacher the more successful learning occurs. We need research to establish whether there are parallels to this finding in higher education. The basic question here is whether students of academic staff with teaching qualifications have better learning outcomes than students in courses where staff have no higher education teaching qualification. The general assumption from the literature is that they do, hence the popularity of mounting such courses. We have not challenged these assumptions.

In an institution with approximately 1300 permanent academic staff and 4000 casual academic staff eligible to undertake a GCHE, an annual enrolment of 30 students is relatively low. This participation suggests low visibility of the course, lack of incentives to undertake the course or possible workloads that constrain engagement.

Zooming in on our assumptions leads us to believe the model of basic teacher education is effective. The course is providing a comprehensive and acceptable avenue for staff to engage in gaining qualifications in teaching in higher education. The course addresses praxis, that is, it integrates theory and practice in ways that accommodate individual disciplinary styles. Emerging from the qualitative data is an endorsement of the effectiveness and value of a course of this nature for the professionalisation of teaching. In addition to enhancing teaching, about 10% of respondents, who completed the Course, indicated that they were more competitive in gaining full time employment. These responses came mostly from part-time tutors. Hence, the broader assumption is that this teaching qualification is seen as acceptable across disciplines. Other statements affirmed the teaching approaches and commitment of teaching staff. However, there were suggestions for how the course could be improved. Some comments spontaneously endorsed the course and argued that it should be compulsory for all staff.

Zooming out provides a perspective that as a professional development course, there was strong endorsement for its capacity to highlight good practice underpinned by theory. This response was somewhat surprising as the balance between theory and practical advice is sometimes difficult to achieve. For a small number of respondents, this was not achieved and there was some concern that there was not enough exposure to teaching “tips” and exposure to best practice. Importantly, however it should be noted that the GCHE is unlike other teaching qualifications which require staff to demonstrate competence in professional practice. Thus, the field experience for tertiary teaching remains the responsibility of discipline areas. On the other hand, a majority approved the level of theoretical underpinnings. The assumption that academic staff in non-education faculties will engage in the discourse of education is corroborated. Staff are prepared to engage with the discipline of education in order to acquire the discourses and knowledge base to enhance their own practice and to inform others within their fields.

Concluding CommentThis paper has been a reflective journey into the delivery of a Graduate Certificate in Higher Education course. The approach, framed by the work of Mezirow (1991), Kreber (2004) and Watson and Wilcox (2000) has provided an opportunity to view the course from three levels and to

14


reflect on the content, processes of delivery and assumptions on which the course is predicated. The model has proven worthwhile and has enabled us to identify directions to proceed both at a detailed level where fine-tuning is appropriate and at a systemic level where the course impacts on institutional strategic directions for developing teaching quality. The reflections at various levels suggest that there is considerable congruence between the intended and experienced curriculum. However, these reflections also indicate avenues to explore to further enhance the quality of the intended curriculum.

ReferencesAylett, R. & Gregory, K. (Eds.) (1996). Evaluating teacher quality in higher education. London:

Falmer.Bain, K. (2004). What makes great teachers great? Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(31), B7-B9.Beattie, D. S. (2000). Expanding the View of Scholarship: Introduction. Acad Med, 75(9), 871-876.Boud, D., & Walker, D. (1998). Promoting reflection in professional courses: The challenge of

context. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 191-206.Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Candy, P. C. (2000). Reaffirming a proud tradition: Universities and lifelong learning. Active

Learning in Higher Education, 1(2), 101-125.Coffey, M., & Gibbs, G. (2000). Can academics benefit from training? Some preliminary evidence.,

Teaching in Higher Education, 5, 385-389.Daly, W. T. (1994). Teaching and scholarship: Adapting American higher education to hard times.

Journal of Higher Education, 65, 45-67.Diezmann, C. M. (2005). Growing scholarly teachers and educational researchers: a curriculum for

a Research Pathway in pre-service teacher education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 33(2), 71–83.

Diezmann, C. M. (in press). Supervision and Scholarly Writing: Writing to learn – Learning to write. Reflective Practice.

Druger, M. (1997). Preparing the Next Generation of College Science Teachers. Journal of College Science Teaching, 26(6), 424-427.

Film Australia. Facing the Music (2001). Video. Gaff, J. G., & Lambert, L. M. (1996). Socializing future faculty to the values of undergraduate

education. Change, 28(4), 38-45.Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new

production of knowledge. London: Sage.Hatton N., & Smith, d. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and

implementation. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11(1), 33-49.Havnes, A. (2002). Examination and learning an activity-theoretical analysis of the relationship

between assessment and learning. Paper presented at the Learning communities and assessment Cultures Conference (EARLI SIG) University of Northumbria, 28-30 August (http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002238.htm)

Hutchinson, G. (1984). The awful Australian. Victoria: Currey O’Neil RossJones, S. (2003, 2003/08/08/). Is training failing to reach trainers? Times Educational Supplement,

29.Kandlbinder, P. (2003). Peeking under the covers: On-line academic staff development in Australia

and the United Kingdom. International Journal for Academic Development, 8(1/2), 135-143.Kreber, C. (2004). An analysis of two models of reflection and their implications for educational

development. International Journal for Academic Development, 9(1), 29-49.Lederman, N. G., & Niess, M. L. (1999). Training college teachers. (Cover story). School Science

& Mathematics, 99(8), 413-417.Leitner, E. (1998). The Pedagogical Qualification of the Academic Teaching Staff and the Quality

of Teaching and Learning. Higher Education In Europe, 23(3), 339-349.

15


MacDonald, I. (2001). The teaching community: Recreating university teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(2), 153-167.

Marginson, S. (2003). Higher education reform in Australia - an evaluation. In Eggins, Heather (Eds.), Globalization and reform in higher education (pp.133-163). Maidenhead: Open University Press,.

Martínez, M., Gros, B., & Romaña, T. (1998). The problem of training in higher education. Higher Education In Europe, 23(4), 483-495.

McArdle, K., & Coutts, N. (2003). A strong core of qualities--a model of the professional educator that moves beyond reflection. Studies in Continuing Education, 25(2), 225-237.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Moon, J. A. (2000). Reflection in learning and educational development. London: Kogan Page.Nicoll, K., & Harrison, R. (2003). Constructing the good teacher in higher education: The

discursive work of standards. Studies in Continuing Education, 25(1), 23-35.Prushiek, J., McCarty, B., & Mcintyre, S. (2001). Transforming professional development for

preservice, inserve and university teachers through a collaborative capstone experience. Education, 121(4), 704-712.

Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. Routledge London.Ramsden, P., Margetson, D., Martin, E. & Clark, S. (1995) Recognising and rewarding good

teaching in Australian higher education, a project commissioned by the Committee for the Advancement of University Teaching Canberra, Government Printer

Rowland, S. (1999). The role of theory in a pedagogical model for lecturers in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 303-314.

Ryan, Y. (1996). The Graduate Certificate in Higher Education: Who enrols, who doesn't, who drops out and why. Different approaches: Theory and practice in higher education. Proceedings HERDSA Conference 1996. Perth, Western Australia, 8-12 July. http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/ryan.html

Sander, P., Stevenson, K., King, M., & Coates, D. (2000). University students' expectations of teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 309-323.

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Sears, D. (2002). Yes, but--remaking the making of teachers. Journal of Education, 183(2), 63-68.Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard

Educational Review, 57, 1-21.Soenksen, R. (1992, 29 October - 1 November). Confessions of a Professor, nee Actor. Paper

presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago. (ERIC ED 354 575).

Travis, J. E., Outlaw, T., & Reven, F. (2001). The preparation of the professoriate: Reviewing the status of teaching and learning. Journal of Faculty Development, 18(3), 63-71.

Toohey, S. (1999). Beliefs, values and ideologies in course design. In Designing courses for higher education (pp.44-69). Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University.

Watson, J. S., & Wilcox, S. (2000). Reading for understanding: Methods of reflecting on practice. Reflective Practice, 1(1), 57-67.

Wulff D. H. & Austin A. E. (eds.) (2004). Paths to the Professoriate: Strategies for Enriching the Preparation of Future Faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Zeichner, K. (1986). Preparing reflective teachers: An overview of instructional strategies which have been employed in preservice teacher education. International Journal of Educational Research, 2, 565–575.

16