AkorangaAkorangaA periodicAl About leArning And teAching from the higher educAtion development centre

teAching And reSeArch- reSeArching teAching?- hoW cAn We linK them? - iS one Worth more?e-leArning … A dirtY Word?Some KeY tASKS for Student AdviSorSdiScovering more SuStAinAbilitY on cAmpuSpAtientS: the ultimAte ASSeSSorS?

iSSue 2: februArY 2008

www.hedc.otago.ac.nz

Welcome from the editorial teamKia ora koutou! Here we are back again with our second issue of Akoranga, fresh-faced and bushy-tailed in preparation to face the new year. We’d like to say haere mai to all readers, both old and new, of this biannual newsletter – containing, as we promised at the start, more articles and ideas to challenge and enhance your teaching along with updates on higher education-related projects and services.

First, we would like to welcome you all back after what we would like to think served as a refreshing break over the Christmas-New Year holiday – time to recharge the batteries, time to soak up some sun . . . well, it IS better than last year. But regardless of the variable state of the weather, the climate here is warm with our commitment to support and nurture, and sometimes provoke, you as teachers.

Nothing is more provocative than a debate, and with that in mind we set the ball rolling in this issue with a report about the 2007 University of Otago Chamber Debate which addressed the moot that “In this University, research should be worth more than teaching.” The debate is an annual event run cooperatively by both HEDC and the Quality Advancement Unit.

The relationship between research and teaching forms the focus of an article later in this issue by Dr Rachel Spronken-Smith (HEDC) in which she provides some historical context on the topic, not to mention clarification of the terminology associated with it. And keeping with the topic of teaching, HEDC Director Professor Kerry Shephard continues his discussion about teaching practices, featured in our first issue, this time concentrating on the impact of teaching on student learning. Before you reach these offerings, however, you may find that your ideas about e-Learning encounter some (r)e-Consideration in a discussion by Jenny McDonald about the niceties implied by that little letter “e”. Cryptic? Well, we did say we liked to challenge you . . .

. . . and to inform you, which is why we include news about the mandate of the new National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence, and also about current policies and courses here at the University aimed at improving teaching and enabling effective student advising. Research is again the focus of a short piece showcasing an award-winning postgraduate project by Martin Kidd (School of Physiotherapy).

Finally, in keeping with our commitment to sustainability, we offer you some tips on how to pass the message on to students, bringing the issue to a close with some updates from the Medical Education Group (MEG) and the Committee for Advancement in Learning and Teaching (CALT).

And now, we invite you to take your seat for the debate. But which side will you choose?

Candi Young

Akoranga is produced by the higher education development centre (hedc) at the university of otago for all university staff.

design: peter Scott marketing and communications university of otago

printing: Southern colour print

this newsletter is printed on 100% recycled paper

editorial team: nell Smith, Kelby Smith-han, and candi Young

contact details: nell Smithnell.smith@otago.ac.nz

copyright: We welcome reprinting if permission is sought. contact nell Smith

cover photo: is of students from the School of physiotherapy at the university of otago where contributing author martin Kidd is a professional practice fellow. martin is a former postgraduate student of hedc and writes for this issue about his award winning research – ‘patients: the ultimate assessors of clinical perfomance?’

the editorial team would like to acknowledge and thank all contributors to this newsletter.

AkorangaiSSue 2: februArY 2008

1

2

university of otago chamber debate 2007

“in this university, should research be worth more than teaching?”

The second University of Otago Chamber Debate was held in the College of Education Auditorium on the 15th October. The topic of the debate was “In this university, research should be worth more than teaching.” OUSA President Renee Heal, Assoc. Prof. Katherine Dickinson and Prof. Richard Morgan argued for the negative while Prof. Tom Brooking, Dr David Duval and Ms Joy Rudland took the affirmative position.

The main argument of the negative team concerned the idea of co-dependency – that to set up a dichotomy between research and teaching was false because it doesn’t flow one way. They argued that teaching occurs everywhere throughout the university, not just in the classroom and that teaching and research rely upon each other – that to carry out both is at the very heart of what a University is. In the end, they argued that research is useless unless it is passed on – unless it is taught – to the students.

The affirmative team initially criticized the negative team for its inability to pick a side. It then sought to counter

their debate by expanding on the metaphor: “research is the lifeblood of the university”. They argued that the lifeblood of the university comes from its heart and brain, and its heart and brain are those parts of the university engaged in research. Teaching is the lungs, where “all the talking happens”, but the real essence is the brain and the heart which between them keep the organism going and going and moving forward into the 21st century.

Despite these well fought arguments, the audience voted the negative team the winners by a clear margin. The chamber debate is an annual event organised by HEDC and Quality Advancement.

The next debate will be held in October 2008. If you have ideas for topics for the 2008 debate, or if you would like to be a debater, please register your interest with either Jenny McDonald from HEDC or Sarah Carr from Quality Advancement.

Recent research conducted at the University of Otago (Spronken-Smith et al., 2006) has indicated that there is some confusion surrounding the Advisers of Studies role. As one of the many measures that are being taken to improve advising at Otago, part of the University policy on advising has been included here. We hope that this helps you know a bit more about the important job that you are doing!

Key tasks1. Give students clear and concise academic advice appropriate

to their needs, aspirations and abilities. This may involve consideration of such matters as:

i. the specific content of courses of study; ii. the skills that those courses of study seek to develop; iii. the intellectual coherence of certain combinations of

papers; iv. the disciplinary and interdisciplinary value of certain

papers or subjects within a degree; v. the most appropriate ways for students to take

advantage of double degree combinations; vi. the capability of the student to undertake a particular

workload; vii. the academic ability of the student.

2. Approve courses of study.

3. Refer students to other staff and support services throughout the University.

As well as Departmental and Divisional Advisors of Studies students could be referred to some of the other, largely free of charge, student support services available on campus. (See list of support services below.)

4. Publicise the availability of advising to students and clearly indicate what times they are able to make appointments; this may involve going to initial lectures of a variety of papers offered by the Department and displaying information on noticeboards.

5. Maintain accurate knowledge of the following in relation to student advising: University regulations, Divisional and School regulations (including degree structures), and Departmental policies.

6. Maintain awareness of career opportunities and employer requirements pertaining to students’ areas of interest and/or know when to refer to another source of information.

Support ServicesCareers Advisory ServiceAssists with a wide range of enquiries – from the exploration of career ideas and course advice, to information about specific jobs, employers and further study.(479) 8244 coralie.dignan@otago.ac.nz

Student Learning CentreProvides learning support, free of charge, to all enrolled students (workshops; individual assistance; online study advice; mentoring for new students). Workshops include topics such as Publishing for Post-Grads; Writing the Thesis; Presenting a Talk or Seminar; Exam Technique; Essay Writing and Reading for Understanding.(479) 5786 student-learning-centre@otago.ac.nz

Student Leadership ProgrammeOffers opportunities for students to become leaders in a range of peer support activities. It also provides a range of peer support activities that are matched to be needs of students of all ages and backgrounds. (479) 8801 student-learning-centre@otago.ac.nz or visit www.otago.ac.nz/slc

International Student OfficeSupport and mentoring for international students. (479) 5777 international-support@otago.ac.nz

English as a Second Language(479) 5250 foundation-studies@otago.ac.nz

Mäori CentreA support service for all students of Mäori descent which includes liaison and advice, tutorials and seminars.(479) 5163/8490 maori-centre@otago.ac.nz

Mäori Student Support OfficersSchool of Business (479) 5342, Humanities (479) 8681

Pacific Island CentreEncourages and assists Pacific Island students to succeed through such services as pastoral care and academic mentoring. (479) 8278.

Liaison OfficeAdvice for Intermediate degrees offered by other universities. Available to existing students to provide advice and information about entrance, courses and degree planning. (479) 8247 liaison@otago.ac.nz

University ChaplainsServices include pastoral care and counselling.(479) 8497 greg.hughson@otago.ac.nz

Student Health ServicesService available to all students who have paid their Welfare Service fee and currently costs $6.50 for students who have a current Community Services Card. Counselling courses include Exam Panic and Stress Management.Health (479) 8212, Counselling (479) 8106

Disability Information and SupportProvides advice, support, advocacy and necessary resources and equipment (e.g. note taking). Free of charge to students who are deaf or who have a physical, sensory, learning, psychological, medical or psychiatric disability.(479) 8245 disabilities@otago.ac.nz

OUSA Student Support CentreHave staff trained to offer advocacy, give information and offer support to students covering a wide range of issues including flatting, employment, budgeting and mediation.(479) 5448 help@ousa.org.nz

Non-Hall First Year TutorialsExtra tutorials for students flatting or living at home and doing competitive entry courses such as law or health science. Details will be at www.ousa.org.nz or contact education@ousa.org.nzSpronken-Smith, R., Buissink-Smith, N. and Walker, R. (2006) Navigating the System: Student Perceptions of Advising at Otago. Unpublished report available at:http://hedc.otago.ac.nz/hedc/research/profile-projects/navigating-the-system.html

Student Advising policy

3

4

Martin Kidd is a Professional Practice Fellow at the School of Physiotherapy and is a former post-graduate student of HEDC. He writes for this issue about his award winning Master of Health Science research into the consideration given to patient opinion in the provision of clinical education.

The use of patients to report on the clinical performance of health professionals is common, whether by survey, interview or focus group methods. The criteria against which the health professionals are judged by the patient, however, are invariably set by the clinicians themselves. At last, in ground-breaking and award-winning research, not only have the patients been asked what they consider to be good clinical practice, but that opinion has formed the basis of the items of a survey to assess the clinical performance of undergraduate physiotherapy students.

Forty final year physiotherapy students at the University of Otago-owned physiotherapy clinics administered a questionnaire to their patients over the final two weeks of

patients: the ultimate assessors of clinical performance?their musculoskeletal rotation. The responses were aggregated for each student, so that an average grade was ascribed each student by the patients. The patient perception of the student performance could then be compared with the grade that the student received from the clinical supervisors, who had no access to the patient responses.

Results of the research showed that the opinion of the patient correlated strongly with the faculty grade for each student. If the patient thought that the student performed well, then there was a significant chance that the student would receive a good grade from clinical supervisors.

Although the reliability of the questionnaire responses is directly related to the number of patients surveyed for each student, nonetheless the questionnaire may provide an opportunity for clinical educators to obtain another perspective on the performance of their students. If, as reported in the literature, assessment drives learning, then the assessment of patient opinion may encourage the student to more actively focus on how the patient feels about any clinical interaction.

This research was acknowledged by the Australia New Zealand Association of Medical Educators (ANZAME), with the postgraduate student award for 2007 at the annual conference in Canberra. The project fulfilled the requirements of the Master of Health Science degree, and has hopefully provided incentive for teachers and students alike to consider patient opinion as a high priority in the provision of clinical education.

Researchers: Martin Kidd, Professional Practice Fellow, School of Physiotherapy. Dr Carol Bond, Student Learning Centre, HEDC. Dr Melanie Bell, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine.

Martin Kidd

2007 AScilite Awards SuccessEach year the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE) runs the ASCILITE awards at its annual conference to recognise exemplary product design and development in the use of electronic technologies in teaching and learning in tertiary education.

This year two Otago entries made it to the finals, the CALT funded Animal Behaviour Project and the TEC funded Information Literacy Project. The Animal Behaviour project came away with a Large Project Award to the delight of the team in Educational Media at HEDC, and Rob Wass and Karin Ludwig from the Department of Zoology.

The Educational Media team in HEDC are no strangers to the ASCILITE awards having made the finals and picked up awards in 2002, 2003 and 2004. Jenny McDonald, Academic Director of Educational Media, sees entry into the awards as an important way for the work of Educational Media to be benchmarked against the work of similar units in NZ, Australia and Asia:

“What the AScilite awards tell us is that our unit, working in partnership with teaching staff, is producing educational technologies that are comparable with some of the best in Australasia”

You can find out more about ASCILITE and the awards at www.ascilite.org.au

I hate the term e-Learning. I didn’t realise how much I hated it until I was interviewed as part of a Ministry of Education funded study the other week. Yet here in the HEDC from which so many things ‘e’ spring, the point of the ‘e’ seems … well, pointless.

What’s the difference between e-Learning and learning? For sure, one answer (and I suspect the easiest answer, especially for any e-Learning system) is a small e, a hyphen and a capital L. Is there more to it than that?

I thought it was King Lear (actually no, it was Dylan Thomas – blame it on whoever learned me) who implored us to go not gently into the good night but rage against the dying of the light1? Well whoever it was, e-Learning it seems took note, and is raging hard, stoutly supported by Ministry and TEC officials and garlanded by e-teachers, in whose eyes tears well at the unlikely but emotional marriage (or moodle) between constructivism and learning management systems. It is further bolstered by armies of IT marketers whose comfortable and lucrative march down the Higher Education Superhighway shows no sign of stopping, and braced by a hardy band of technical support folk who try to be all things to all people.

Why? Well maybe, like ‘e’ for Everest, because it’s there. But employing some of the critical faculties that Universities are famous for, and frippery aside, here’s a ‘back of an envelope’ analysis of e-Learning.

If we don’t know what e-Learning is, do we know what it isn’t? Yes; e-Learning, because of the ‘e’ cannot be anything that does not involve information and communication technology. Yet today, it is hard to think of any course, paper, or programme at this University that does not involve ‘e’ in some way, however small. Course communications rely on ‘e’, dissertations depend on ‘e’, even enrolment is increasingly ‘e’. So if e-Learning is part of all learning why not just focus on the learning?

Partly, the reason for this is historical. Since at least the 1940s, and probably starting with folk like Pressey and Skinner and the early mechanical teaching machines, people have tried to find ways to make learning and teaching more efficient. To his credit, Skinner never saw the machine replacing the teacher but rather using it to free the teacher from repetitive drill and practice tasks. He also saw machines as a way to provide immediate feedback on performance to students. Through the provision of mechanical assistance, Skinner felt that teachers would have more time to spend working with individual students. A plethora of quasi-experimental studies since have tried, and failed, to generate a body of convincing evidence that teaching by machine is either more or less effective than teaching in the flesh. Sometimes it is effective and sometimes it isn’t. In other words, the effectiveness of learning with the

aid of a machine or any other technology seems to depend…on something. The real question is, on what?

If you are lucky enough, or unfortunate enough depending on your perspective, to be at an educational or educational technology conference, you will at this juncture be aware of a rising chorus reciting the mantra, “pedagogy must drive the technology!” I hate to be a kill-joy, but the pedagogy is never likely to drive the technology for the simple reason that of all the technologies out there, almost none of them have ever been designed specifically for education....they are designed for and driven by other things, with much more lucrative markets. Education, including higher education, has simply adopted them along the way as they have come into common use. Think film, television, video, DVDs, telephones, cell phones, radio, the Internet and world-wide web … You get the picture.

Teachers have always been dedicated gatherers. They cobble together exemplars, models, texts, exercises, whatever they think might be of value to their students from the infinite variety of material, sources and technologies that are out there already. And for good reason.

Most of the disciplinary teaching we do at this University is not directly related to ‘e’ or ICT. It is discipline-based: History, English, Physics, Maths, Medicine, Law…Certainly each of these disciplines comes with their own discipline-specific technologies or ‘e’ and where this occurs the requirements of the discipline will drive their inclusion in the curriculum. What drives the inclusion of non-discipline based ‘e’ ?

Ease of communication, efficiency and opportunities to include a wide and varied range of materials and resources mostly drive the inclusion of non-discipline based ‘e’. In part these are the same kinds of things that drove Skinner to develop his teaching machine in the first place. Where there are in fact gains in terms of better communication, efficiency and availability of resources and materials, this is all good. But all too often a nutrient-depleted slop of ill-conceived ‘e’ for its own sake ends up overlaying many good intentions. The best way to avoid the build up of slop is to be clear about your goals and intentions, and to conduct an honest evaluation of whether your use of ‘e’ is resulting in positive outcomes for your students and for you.

To return to the question, on what does the successful use of ‘e’ depend, the following is a quick and dirty guide to the evaluation of ‘e’ that we have found useful over the last year or so in evaluating CALT and Educational Media work. It is designed as a formative tool to help you in your teaching. This kind of evaluation is ideal to include in your teaching profile.

dirty words, and quick and dirty evaluations…

5

Break your evaluation into 3 broad areas:

1. Is the ‘e’ I’m using readily accessible and does it do what it is supposed to do?

2. Is the ‘e’ readily useable by me and the majority of my students?

3. Does inclusion of the ‘e’ seem to impact in a positive way on learning outcomes?

Devise a series of questions for yourself, tutors and students that aim to provide answers in each of these areas. An example questionnaire is shown. Fill in the questionnaire yourself, then give it to students, tutors and any other colleagues involved in your course.

Ask the people in charge of technical support for whatever ‘e’ you are using to provide you with access to useage data. This will help to validate the information you receive from the questionnaire.

Where feasible take the time to observe students using the ‘e’ and note down your observations. Talk to students about the ‘e’ and jot down recurring comments. Again, this will help to provide validation of feedback from the questionnaire.

Look at the results of student assessment to see whether the learning outcomes supported by your ‘e’ are being achieved.

Arrange a meeting with colleagues and tutors who use the ‘e’ to discuss the results of the questionnaire, usage data, observations, and assessment results …. Does the picture fit with your experience? Is the ‘e’ adding value? If yes then keep it and maybe use some of the feedback to fine-tune its use. If no, then don’t persist!

If you would like help with preparing this kind of evaluation or would like HEDC assistance with preparation of the questionnaires, please contact Jo Kennedy joanne.kennedy@stonebow.otago.ac.nz

Jenny McDonald

1 From a poem, “Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night” by Dylan Thomas, written for his dying father. “Rage, rage against the dying of the light” is a refrain throughout.

dirty words, and quick and dirty evaluations…

6

This article by Rachel Spronken-Smith from HEDC unpacks the links between teaching and research and makes a plea for lecturers to consider adopting ‘research-based’ teaching within their curricula.

One of Otago’s strategic imperatives is ‘achieving excellence in research-informed teaching’ but what does this mean? Unfortunately the higher education literature on the research-teaching nexus suffers from a plethora of terms, many of which have multiple meanings. So what is termed ‘research-informed’ by one author, may be equated with ‘research-based’ by another. This makes it very difficult to interpret the intent of statements about teaching-research links in institutions’ mission statements or strategic imperatives. This article unpacks the links between teaching and research and makes a plea for lecturers to consider adopting ‘research-based’ teaching within their curricula.

One of the most commonly cited references about the links between teaching and research is that by Ron Griffiths (2004). He proposed four models of the teaching-research nexus:

• Teachingcanbe research-led in the sense that the curriculum is structured around subject content, and the content selected is directly based on the specialist research interests of teaching staff; teaching is based on a traditional ‘information transmission’ model; the emphasis is on understanding research findings rather than research processes; little attempt is made to capture the two-way benefits of the research–teaching relationship.

• Teachingcanberesearch-oriented in the sense that the curriculum places emphasis as much on understanding the processes by which knowledge is produced in the field as on learning the codified knowledge that has been achieved; careful attention is given to the teaching of inquiry skills and on acquiring a ‘research ethos’; the research experiences of teaching staff are brought to bear in a more diffuse way.

• Teachingcanberesearch-based in the sense that the curriculum is largely designed around inquiry-based activities, rather than on the acquisition of subject content; the experiences of staff in processes of inquiry are highly integrated into the student learning activities; the division of roles between teacher and student is minimised; the scope for two-way interactions between research and teaching is deliberately exploited.

• Teachingcanberesearch-informed in the sense that it draws consciously on systematic inquiry into the teaching and learning process itself.

(Griffith, 2004:722)

Note that Otago in its strategic imperative was certainly not wanting to promote, as the main form of the link, ‘research-informed’ teaching according to Griffith’s schema! The working party examining this imperative discussed the teaching research nexus more broadly and made the following distinctions: teaching and learning from research (i.e. research-led); teaching and learning about research (i.e. research-oriented); and teaching and learning through research (i.e. research-based).

7

Mick Healey, who visited Otago in 2006, used Griffith’s models of the teaching-research nexus and linked these to features of a curriculum (Figure 1). Healey (2005) argued that it was possible to design curricula which develop the research-teaching link according to whether:

• theemphasisisonresearchcontentortheresearchprocessand

• studentsaretreatedastheaudience(teacher-focusedapproach) or participants (student-focused).

He suggested that most traditional university teaching occurs in the bottom left (research-led) quadrant, although he recognised that some disciplines have relatively more activity in the other quadrants. He argued that higher education should place more emphasis on pedagogies in the top half of Figure 1, particularly on research-based teaching since this has the most benefit for student learning.

Figure 1. The links between curriculum design and the research-teaching-nexus (Healey, 2005).

Research by Jane Robertson (formerly of Canterbury University) and Carol Bond (HEDC) (2005) found disciplinary differences in the nature of the teaching-research relation, and hence in curriculum design. In hard science disciplines the focus of teaching at lower levels is often on the structure of knowledge, and once students accumulate sufficient foundational knowledge they can then undertake research. Thus research-based teaching may not occur until third year or even postgraduate study. In contrast, in softer disciplines, where knowledge is socially constructed, teaching engages students in disciplinary conversations and thus research-based teaching occurs at lower levels. Despite these disciplinary differences, the hope is that by the final undergraduate year, teachers are using at least some research-based teaching so that students are fully engaged in the research process.

While the intent of research-based teaching may be partly to generate the next crop of researchers and academics, the prime motivator is the achievement of higher order learning outcomes (critical thinking) and transferrable skills expected of a higher education.

Strengthening links between teaching and research

STUDENT-FOCUSEDSTUDENTS AS PARTICIPANTS

Research-tutoredCurriculum emphasizes

learning focused on students writing and

discussing papers or essays

Research-basedCurriculum emphasizes

students undertaking

inquiry-based learning

Research-ledCurriculum is structured

around teaching subject content

Research-orientedCurriculum emphasizes

teaching processes of knowledge

construction in the subject

EMPHASIS ON

RESEARCH CONTENT

EMPHASIS ON

RESEARCH PROCESSES

AND PROBLEMS

TEACHER-FOCUSEDSTUDENTS AS AUDIENCE

8

Having set up a framework for the various links between teaching and research, consideration will now be given to practical ways to achieve these links (Table 1). Note that any attempt to integrate research into teaching is better than none at all! Underpinning all approaches is an intent to develop students’ understandings of a topic and to raise awareness of the research culture within the department, but how this is achieved is variable. Also as you move down the table, the emphasis shifts from understanding the research outputs (i.e. the knowledge) to the research process.

While it may be tempting, for pragmatic reasons, to leave research-based teaching until third year level, research suggests that there should be progressive development of inquiry skills throughout the curriculum. This raises a tricky issue for lecturers. How often do departments discuss and plan the whole degree programme? Usually the focus is on a particular course or perhaps a year’s offerings, yet ideally the whole programme should be considered so that a holistic approach can be undertaken for the development of knowledge and skills in the particular degree.

Following a review in the late 1990s, the Ecology Programme1 at Otago undertook such a planning exercise with the explicit intent to incorporate research-based teaching throughout the degree. Inquiry approaches were advocated for not only introducing students to research, but also to fulfill broader educational outcomes. The result, several years on, is a coherent programme that progressively builds up research skills in their students. At stage 1, as part of the laboratory programme in the core ecology course, students are taken into

the field to address a question about invertebrate biodiversity in the Town Belt. Following gathering of field data, students are guided through a series of laboratory exercises and assisted in the development of a written report. In one of the core stage 2 papers, and again in the laboratory programme, students work in groups to explore aspects of an ecosystem (choice of ecosystems is closely tied to staff research interests) and must produce a scientific poster showing the relationships between components of their chosen ecosystem. Their ecosystem then suffers a disturbance (introduced by staff) and the students must produce a research proposal (using ORG format and peer reviewed) that details how they would investigate the impact of this disturbance on their ecosystem. The ‘capstone’ course is a stage 3 field studies course in which students undertake a research project. The course has no lectures but rather a week-long residential field course during which students design a research project and collect data. Analysis and write-up occurs back on campus, and is supported by a series of optional workshops.

The Ecology example demonstrates how inquiry skills can be progressively built into a curricula. To achieve this integration requires planning across the entire curriculum and a motivated teaching team, committed to the best possible student learning outcomes. Pedagogical research into this programme1 shows that students certainly are developing higher order learning outcomes, value the experience, achieve well academically, and are inducted into a departmental research community. The results of this pedagogical research will be the focus of an article in the next issue of Akoranga.

Intention of curriculum and link Types of learning activities Typical assessment items

Research-led: To grasp a body of knowledge, Lectures to cover research developments Emphasis on exams – often MCQ,teaching and learning to make explicit research in the topic. Making students aware of short answers, some essays.from research in the topic. staff and postgraduate research May be an internal lab or (use explicit examples). tutorial component to cover particular knowledge areas. Research-oriented: To develop students’ abilities Lectures on research methods. May be Emphasis on exams – often MCQ,teaching and learning to carry out research. supported by labs or tutorials exploring short answers, some essays. Mayabout research methods of data collection and analyses. be an internal lab or tutorial Use your own (or your postgraduates’) component to cover development data sets for analysis. of specific research skills. Research-based: To give students practice in Activities which engage students in Emphasis on internal assessment.teaching and learning research. To develop research research: literature reviews, research Research reports or papers, oralthrough research and communication skills. proposals, research projects (individually presentations, posters, learning or in groups). Few or no lectures, usually logs. group and/or independent work, field work, tutorials and seminars.

1The Ecology Programme is being studied as part of a Ministry of Education funded research project that is exploring examples of inquiry-based learning at undergraduate level across four institutions: the universities of Otago (lead institution), Canterbury and Victoria, and the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology. Other courses being showcased from Otago are the third year medicine Endocrinology Module and a second year Political Communications in New Zealand course.

Griffiths, R. (2004). Knowledge production and the research-teaching nexus: the case of the built environment disciplines. Studies in Higher Education 29, 709-726.

Table 1: Curriculum features of different models of the research-teaching link.

Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching: Exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquiry-based learning. In Barnett, R. (Ed) Reshaping the University: New Relationships between Research, Scholarship and Teaching. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Robertson, J. & Bond, C. (2005) Being in the University. In Barnett, R. (Ed) Reshaping the University: New Relationships between Research, Scholarship and Teaching. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Rachel Spronken-Smith - HEDC

9

What is the AvSdu and what can it do for you?

What is this new Ako Aotearoa – the national centre for tertiary teaching excellence?

looking for resources for professional development in teaching, learning and research? then look no further than the … hedc resource room!HEDC has an extensive collection of resources, including books, journals and newspapers on higher education and academic practice. The Resource Collection is designed to support academics at Otago in their professional development of teaching and research. The books are available for borrowing and any articles of interest from journals or newspapers can be photocopied for individual research. The Resource Room is run by Kelby Smith-Han and is usually open on weekdays from 9am to 5pm.

Contact Kelby Smith-Han, phone (03) 479-5861, email: kelby.smith-han@otago.ac.nz

Where are we? – hedc resource room locationHEDC Resource Room, Room G05, 65/75 Union Place West, Dunedin

Ako Aotearoa, launched in November 2007, has a vision to facilitate the best possible educational outcomes for people engaged in learning within the tertiary sector. The Centre aims to assist tertiary education organisations and educators to build their capacity to help people achieve the best possible educational outcomes. The word ‘Ako’ is interchangeable and means both to teach and learn. Activities of the Centre include:

• Fosteringandsupportingeffortstoenhancelearningandteaching

• Supportingresearchandinquiryintoeffectiveteaching

• Identifyingandcelebratingeffectiveteaching

• Actingasaknowledgerepositoryandresourceinsupportofeffective teaching

• Providingpolicyadviceonlearningandteachingwithinthetertiary education sector.

The Centre, directed by Dr Peter Coolbear, has a National Office in Wellington with Northern (Auckland), Central (Palmerston North) and Southern (Christchurch) Hubs. We have close links with the Southern Hub and Rachel Spronken-Smith of HEDC is an Otago University representative on the Southern Hub Advisory Group.

Educational researchers may be interested to learn of funding opportunities through Ako Aotearoa. The regional hubs have small amounts available for research projects aligned with project priorities, and larger amounts are available through the National Office.

For more information about Ako Aotearoa, including funding opportunities, see their website at www.akoaotearoa.ac.nz

Following the merger of Dunedin College of Education with the University of Otago in December 2006, the University has a new Audio Visual Support and Development Unit (AVSDU). For many years, the HEDC AV production unit has worked closely with the former College’s AV unit. Post-merger, staff from the College unit under ITS Teaching Facilities and staff from the HEDC AV unit joined forces to provide a single AV Support and Development Unit for all of the University. Professor Kerry Shephard, Director of HEDC is delighted by the creation of this collaborative unit.

The new AVSDU offers a wide range of services related to AV production. These include:

• Production of any kind of learning resources

• Recording of lectures and performances

• DVD and video tape duplication

• Conversion of video tape to DVD

• Loan pool equipment and editing facilities

All routine services will be charged for under the cost-recovery model operated by ITS. Examples of this include video copying and routine lecture recording.

Any teaching and learning development services, which include an evaluation component, will not incur any charge to departments. This is consistent with the services currently offered by HEDC’s Educational Media, to support teaching and learning within the University. Academic staff from HEDC will be available to assist with evaluation work.

The AVSDU producers, Robert van der Vyver and Russell Garbutt, will be very happy to provide advice and guidance for staff who would like to use the Unit.

For further information please contact Robert robert.vandervyver@otago.ac.nz ext 7228) or Russell russell.garbutt@otago.ac.nz ext 3779).

10

11

In my last article for Akoranga I suggested that we know relatively little about the impact that Otago’s particular teacher-evaluation and academic-promotion processes have on the ways that lecturers teach. I am interested in how we teach and what we teach, mostly because of its likely effect on how and what students learn. In effect, I was commenting on one specific element of the learning environment that Otago establishes for students. In this article I wish to extend this to a more general consideration of the impact of our teaching on student learning. What do we know and what don’t we know and how do we know these things?

For me this process of knowing is achieved through research. Personal knowledge may come through study, but disciplinary knowledge surely comes through research. To know these things in a disciplinary context implies, to many, a commitment to collective exploration of the situation and contribution to the public debate. But concepts of research almost certainly vary between disciplines and, outside of academia, research implies a wide range of activities. For some, research is itself a fundamental attribute of learning. I would like herein to keep the broadest possible definition of research and explore how research in higher education is advancing our field of enquiry.

One of the wonderful things about higher education, as a field of enquiry, is its multi-disciplinary nature. (Some might argue interdisciplinary, but I am happy to claim the lesser descriptor of multi- in this context). Colleagues in HEDC, for example, come from a wide range of disciplines and bring with them a wealth of ‘ways of knowing’ and ‘approaches to achieve this knowledge’. My own research background in biology lends itself to positivist and quantitative methodologies. Many of my colleagues favour qualitative approaches. I have recently become involved in phenomenographic research, working with supportive colleagues in HEDC, and I see now ways to answer questions that I had many years ago that I then had no way to answer. I now appreciate the power of qualitative approaches to increase our knowledge about higher education. I delight in exploring the literature as this new knowledge contributes to the public debate on higher education practice. But I also enjoy the range of research that is occurring in higher education, a range that spans several domains from positivist to anti-positivist, and from the perspectives dominated by the particular disciplines of the researchers involved. This range, I argue, also relates to different degrees of formality in research. Lecturers in higher education often research their own teaching practices. Some do so with the formality of conventional educational research, some bring their own disciplinary methodologies to answer their questions and some develop relatively informal approaches.

So how do teachers influence learners? How does the environment of learning, and of teaching, interact with this influence? What do students actually learn from us, and how does this learning interact with other sources of influence that they experience whilst with us in Dunedin? Is it useful to categorise learning as what we know, what we can do and

researching our teaching practiceswhat we value, or as cognitive and affective? If the latter, how do our learning and teaching activities, course designs and assessments contribute to these attributes? And, while we are here, what attributes precisely do we expect our students to achieve, and how good are we at noticing when they do or do not achieve them? In what ways are Otago graduates special? How would we know?

Researching our practice seems to me to be the only way that we could ever find answers to these questions, and some questions probably do need the power of formal research to penetrate. But before we assume the need to engage in education-specific research methodologies, let us briefly explore what all of us do already. When groups of academic staff bestow the title of ‘graduate’ on an individual, they are in some ways providing particular answers to these questions in the form of outcomes. They are, for example, supporting the notion that the individual concerned has achieved, by whatever means, a range of generic graduate attributes, and probably a body of disciplinary-specific knowledge, skills and values, to varying degrees. We stake our reputation on it. We have confidence that the individual concerned will not let us down because we have confidence in the processes that we all contribute to. Higher Education has developed a sophisticated system (perhaps systems) that allows us to assure ourselves of the learning of our graduates and of the quality of our teaching processes. Whether we identify this system as a discrete quality assurance process or as something looser and less defined (or perhaps as un-definable) probably depends on our particular need for definition and description. [I need definition. Indeed I need to cut it up, poke around inside it, put it together in various forms and experiment with it before I am happy that I understand it]. For me, the constituent parts of higher education that contribute to our collective assurance of learning are assessment and evaluation. I have poked both around for some time now.

Assessment, for me, is largely about establishing clear goals for students to achieve and identifying how we know that students are achieving them. We ensure that the assessments that we set align with our goals (so that they are valid) and that achievement in them is not random or haphazard (and therefore that the assessment is reliable). We ensure that the assessments match our learning and teaching activities and motivate learning. We also ensure that the assessment is compatible with the level of the programme, often with respect to hours of study, content range, and the effort needed by students to succeed. We rely extensively on the professionalism and experience of our own academic staff and on external oversight by external assessors. Assessment is a key element of our processes that lead to assurance of learning. We tell students what we expect of them and enable them to demonstrate to us that they match our expectation. We are assured. In the process we personally develop skills and experience in setting and grading assessment. We collect data, often on an annual basis, and use this to modify, or evolve, our skills. Clearly we learn on the job to develop our personal

12

understanding of the processes. This is a massive and ongoing task for all of us, and, in my opinion, the toughest part of being a teacher in higher education.

But that is not enough. As professionals we wish to assure ourselves not just of our students’ achievements, but of our own, using processes of monitoring, evaluation and review. We regularly monitor the development and implementation of our papers. We ask students and peers to help us to reflect on our achievements through student-perception questionnaires and peer-review processes. We add our own evaluative commentary and discuss the contribution of our personal efforts to student learning on our papers, and to the functioning of programmes of papers, with groups of peers in academic Boards of Study. Periodically we reconvene in different combinations as Review Boards to look again at our data, reflect on our achievements and on our developments. We are assured. In the process, our teaching is challenged, revised and enhanced and the environment that we create for student learning is constantly evolving.

There are many similarities between this description of those academic processes that contribute to assurance of learning, and broader definitions of research. They appear as, and are advanced by, systematic enquiry, for example. They generally advance by collaborative endeavour, albeit with one individual, or one group, at the centre of each exploration. They are certainly research-like in nature. (Some might argue that they are similar to Action Research). Action Research, particularly in an education context, involves systematic cyclical planning, taking action, observing, evaluating and critical reflecting prior to planning the next cycle; although there are more precise interpretations and more demanding definitions of Action Research. Researchers, and teachers, who want to

know more, could start with the journal, Action Research, http://arj.sagepub.com/current.dtl. As our subject areas, and our teaching skills, develop we revise our curricula, we modify the content of our lectures, we change the assessment, we use our professional judgment to assess the abilities of students and ask peers and external assessors to help us. We monitor the progress of our papers and of our students, constantly searching for better ways to support student learning and greater understanding of the links between our teaching and student learning. In many respects our academic practices are themselves a process of researching our practice. Even though we are often reluctant to contribute this particular expression of research to the public debate on the issues, there is a public debate waiting for these contributions.

So what impact do the University’s teaching evaluation and promotion processes have on the ways that we teach and on the ways that our students learn? We should not necessarily, and initially, be seeking a generic, university-wide answer to this question. Perhaps the question is, initially, better situated with each of our own practices. Each of us has access to a wealth of data, often extending over many years, and to a wealth of on-going learning opportunities. Each exploration may not in itself qualify as formal research and may not, on its own, advance the knowledge-base in our field of enquiry. But collectively these endeavours may be crucial. What factors do influence how we teach and what our students learn? Individual explorations of our own teaching, assessment and evaluation processes may indeed eventually, and collectively, reveal the increased understanding that we seek.

Professor Kerry ShephardDirector of HEDC

13

discovering Sustainability on campusWe have been delighted to continue to discover some creative examples of learning and teaching about sustainability on campus. In this issue we feature a Tourism paper in which Jan Mosedale’s students attempted to settle a ‘real’ community dispute over the development of a resort on a Hawaiian Island. If you are involved in teaching or learning about sustainability we would be very happy to hear from you (nell.smith@otago.ac.nz).

Sustainability is a key concept at the core of the Tourism Planning and Development paper. The course aims to link tourism development to economic, environmental, social and cultural issues through the (often interactive) teaching of sustainability. For the first time this year, students participated in a simulation negotiation, which was intended to provide an interactive ‘real life’ situation for students. Student groups attempted to settle a community dispute over the development of a tourism resort on 500 acres in Menehune Bay on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. In the simulation, the groups each represented one major stakeholder involved in the dispute between environmental, native rights, and commercial tourism development interests in Hawaii. Three issues were discussed in the negotiations: the use of the shoreline, the fate of marshes and water resources, and economic growth and job creation. Under the guidance of their tutors, acting as facilitators, the students eventually managed to come to an agreement.

Negotiation techniques were not the focus (leading to some rather entertaining exchanges between negotiating parties), rather the main aim of the exercise was to demonstrate the difficulty of obtaining consensus within a community on development projects. Since student feedback was extremely encouraging, the experiment will be repeated next year (maybe enforcing Robert’s Rules of Order this time…).

Jan Mosedale

Some (but not 147…) tips for teaching SustainabilityIf you are interested in education for sustainability but not really too sure where to begin…These tips are based on a few of the 147 very useful tips in 147 Practical Tips for Teaching Sustainability by Timpson et al. (2006). The book is held by the University of Otago library.

TIP 18: Assign a Voice for the FutureIn a discussion or debate assign one individual to be the “advocate” or “watchdog” for future generations, offering perspectives and insights on the impacts of various decisions

on our economy, community and natural environment that might otherwise be missed. People, too, can be assigned to speak for others: for example, in a discussion about a proposed commercial development someone could “speak for the watershed”.

TIP 49: Brainstorm a “Should” ListExamine the ethical codes or standards that exist for your professional association, business, or other organization. Discuss the rationale for those ideals, and how they must have developed through collaboration and consensus building within your profession. Then, with your students, examine the code of ethics and see if it could be improved using sustainable principles. Challenge the group to create a consensus code of ethics.

TIP 79: Question AssumptionsSome simple games can help initiate discussion and clarify key points about sustainability. For example, put a large number of balls and other objects in a hoop in the middle of the floor, and divide the students into groups and tell them that the object of the game is to get as many resources for the group in five minutes, and that stealing is allowed. Reportedly, bedlam may follow and it is important that at the end no group ‘wins’, but, during a debriefing at this point, the game’s goals can be revisited, the assumptions people made questioned and strategies discussed (such as reframing the ‘group’ as ‘entire group’, rather than the smaller teams). This game, or any variation on it, could help students to better understand the more abstract arguments about cultural values and conflicts.

TIP 91: Build on ExperienceThink of an item that the students might all use (cell phone, credit card, water bottle etc.) and ask exhaustive questions as to its resource use and waste streams, pricing and access, social assets. Ask – is it contributing to a healthier world, greater prosperity for all, and a stronger community? Could it be designed better or should it be replaced to meet these goals?

TIP 140: Create a Peer Culture of Behaviour ChangeGet students to write down one new behaviour from the previous week (month? semester?) that they did to contribute to sustainability. These can then be read aloud, and the economic and social advantages of each discussed where appropriate. Then the students can select an award winner, who is given something like a green shirt – that they can decorate and pass on (to the next winner). As students exhaust the common behaviours such as shorter showers and recycling, they have to make additional effort to earn the green shirt (such as College or flat wide activities).

14

The Otago Undergraduate Medical Curriculum – focusing on the patient and the community: the early clinical programme

Otago University and the Medical Faculty are rightly proud of the reputation of graduates from the MBChB. However, in order to main its reputation as a leading institution there is a continual and evolutionary process of curriculum critique and development. In February 2008, a new year 2/3 course will commence in the MBChB undergraduate medical programme.

This course is being re-designed for a number of pragmatic, political and educationally evidenced reasons. The changes proposed are evolutionary in nature adhering to the continual review of the course in order to move and respond to educational advances, both in process and content.

The change builds upon changes in the 2007 Health Science First Year Course (HSFY) at Otago University. The HSFY is the common undergraduate entry point to the health based professions (medicine, dentistry, physiotherapy and pharmacy). After HSFY the students begin their professional education in the Otago School of Medical Sciences (OSMS) and then go on to one of three clinical schools.

The new 2007 HSFY course now includes material that was traditionally taught in year 2 or 3. This has necessitated content changes to the proposed 2008 course in medicine. This was also seen as a good opportunity to modify other elements of the course.

There are three main new elements to the programme: a case based learning course, a ‘Clinical Skills’ course and a ‘Health in the Community’ course.

case based learningWithin the previous course, running throughout the two years was a programme of cases called Systems Integration. This concept was well received by the students and recognised the importance of contextual learning. This has been developed and built upon through the use of clinical cases using task based learning.

The students will work on a clinical case/scenario for a two week period. This continues throughout second and third year amounting to 27 cases in all. The focus is making underpinning basic and clinical science relevant to learning though clinical cases. In addition it is to be hoped that realistic clinical situations will add to the motivation of the students and make them enthusiastic about their continued learning.

greater emphasis on health in the communityLearning about Community based health care is imperative considering 90% of health care interactions occur within the community. The community is where the majority of graduates will practise and where the majority of patients will be treated. The early introduction of community care may orientate students towards society’s needs.

Community based learning and awareness have always been an important part of the programme. In the traditional course students had two dedicated immersion weeks in the community, one week in year 2 and one week in year 3, some within the Mäori community (called Early Community

Contact, ECC). This model had the conferred benefit of dedicated weeks but lacked the continuity of exposure and associated value. The challenge was to develop ECC further and to widen its scope.

In the new course, whilst there is still an emphasis on Health in the Community, it will be spread over the whole two years, with students being allocated at least 2 hours per week. A week’s immersion will also be retained in week 3.

The Health in the Community features the following key components: Illness Studies; Caring Studies; Disability Studies; Communication and Doctor Patient Relationship; Community Support, and Professional Development.

basic acquisition of clinical skillsThe traditional pre-clinical/clinical divide has caused anxiety for students. Students have moved from a theory based, lecture theatre and laboratory based environment to a ward environment, and have suffered from an abrupt change in environment and philosophy. The clinical skills programmes, with real or simulated patients, will hopefully ease the transition. Students may be more able and ready to work in a clinically based environment, and may be more useful than before and thus feel they have a legitimate role.

A clinical skills programme is a major addition to the year 2/3 programme. Every week students will spend 2 hours learning basic clinical skills. This learning will take place predominantly in the purpose-built clinical skills centre, ‘The Hunter Centre’.

It is hoped that these evolutionary changes will build upon aspects of the previous course and produce a student able to function in the clinical environment at an earlier stage in their education. The impact of the early clinical programme on the advanced clinical programme (later years) is being considered and will build upon the changes made. The early clinical years will be evaluated and researched in order to determine the benefits of these changes.

Joy RudlandDirector of Educational Support and DevelopmentFaculty of Medicine

medical education group

Artist’s impression of The Hunter Centre

15

Akoranga We welcome feedback to the editor: nell.smith@stonebow.otago.ac.nz