professional development program to embed inclusive and

Professional development program to embed

inclusive and explicit teaching practices in higher

education first year units

Final report, February 2016

The Victoria Institute, Victoria University (lead institution)

Edith Cowan University (partner institution)

Project team

Ms Claire Brown (lead), Professor Roger Slee, Associate

Professor Katie Hughes, Dr Kathy Tangalakis, Associate

Professor Kerry Dickson, Ms Monika Taylor, Dr Brian Zammit –

Victoria University

Assoc. Professor Mark McMahon – Edith Cowan University

Report authors

Ms Claire Brown, Dr Vida Voncina Vodeb, Professor Roger

Slee, Dr Maxwell Winchester

www.vu.edu.au/the-victoria-institute/publications

http://www.vu.edu.au/the-victoria-institute/publications

Support for the production of this report has been provided by the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching. The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching.

With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and where otherwise noted, all material presented in this document is provided under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. The details of the relevant licence conditions are available on the Creative Commons website (accessible using the links provided) as is the full legal code for the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode. Requests and inquiries concerning these rights should be addressed to: Learning and Teaching Support Student Information and Learning Branch Higher Education Group Department of Education and Training GPO Box 9880 Location code C50MA7 CANBERRA ACT 2601 <[email protected]>

2017 ISBN PDF 978-1-76051-044-2 ISBN DOCX 978-1-76051-045-9 ISBN PRINT 978-1-76051-046-6

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode

mailto:[email protected]

Improving Higher Education Teaching Practice 3

Acknowledgements The project team comprised, Dr Kathy Tangalakis, Associate Professor Kerry Dickson, Ms

Monika Taylor, Dr Brian Zammit and Associate Professor Mark McMahon under the

leadership of Ms Claire Brown, Professor Roger Slee and Associate Professor Katie Hughes.

Dr Vida Voncina Vodeb undertook analysis of data and case studies’ research.

Dr Maxwell Winchester provided the economic analysis for the project.

The broader project team comprised of an interdisciplinary team of teaching and research

staff recruited from across Victoria University and Edith Cowan University. The team thanks

both universities for providing support and encouragement throughout the project. The

collaboration of the various groups within and across both universities became a highlight of

the project as we sought to cross silos and build a professional learning community of higher

education educators who were collaborative, cross-disciplinary, and collegiate.

We thank AVID Center for their generosity in supporting this project. The Advancement via

Individual Determination (AVID) professional learning materials and programs are grounded

in over 36 years of research to develop sustained, rigorous, high quality professional

learning. Currently in the USA there are over one million AVID students. In 2015, over

35,000 teachers participated in the annual AVID professional learning programs known as

the AVID Summer Institutes.

The project team is very grateful to teaching staff at both universities who generously

agreed to undertake the AVID for Higher Education professional learning program over two

years, and to subsequently be surveyed, interviewed and filmed.

We also acknowledge the support of our professional team at the Victoria Institute for

Education, Diversity and Lifelong Learning without whom the research and teaching could

not be completed and presented in its final form. We thank our videographers and digital

media colleagues from Kine Graffiti for their contribution to this project.

For their various contributions to the project, the team would especially like to thank:

Mr Jim Donohue, Mr Granger Ward and Ms Evie Hyatt, AVID Center

Mr Andrew Ewing, Edith Cowan University

Professor Mark Hackling - initial project lead, Edith Cowan University


List of acronyms used

ALTC Australian Learning and Teaching Council

AVID Advancement via Individual Determination

AHE AVID for Higher Education

BLASST Benchmarking Leadership and Advancement of Standards for Sessional

Teaching

College of H&B College of Health and Biomedicine, VU

ECU Edith Cowan University

OLT Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching

ROI Return on investment

SCA School of Communication and Arts, ECU

VU Victoria University

WICOR Writing for purpose

Inquiry-based learning

Collaborative learning strategies

Organisational skills

Critical Reading strategies


Executive summary

Background Higher education institutions across Australia employ large numbers of teaching staff, many

having minimal or no teaching qualifications. As the Benchmarking Leadership and

Advancement of Standards for Sessional Teaching (BLASST) Report noted: Up to 50% of

teaching in Australian universities is provided by sessional staff (Percy, Scoufis, Parry,

Goody, Hicks, Macdonald, Martinez, Szorenyi-Reischl, Ryan, Wills, S & Sheridan, 2008). At

individual departmental levels, this can rise to levels of 80% and more (Harvey, Fraser &

Bowes, 2005). Sessional staff members do not have the same opportunities as ongoing staff

to access learning and teaching professional learning programs. In addition, teaching by

sessional staff members has typically not been highly valued by universities (Bexley, James,

& Arkoudis, 2011, p. 46). In some universities, less experienced and temporary teaching

staff are given the most important classes – large undergraduate classes of first-year,

foundation units. This project focused on teaching staff of large, first year foundation units,

both sessional and permanent.

The current project explores issues about the quality of higher education teaching similar to

concerns raised in the 2010 United Kingdom based Browne Report (2010), and to

complement recommendations from the Southwell (2012), Devlin, Kift, Nelson, Smith, &

McKay, (2012) and Harvey (2014) reports. The Southwell (2012) report provides

recommendations for raising the quality and status of higher education teaching and

identifies professional development in teaching for all academics as a key activity for

achieving this improvement. The Devlin et al. (2012) report looks more holistically at

providing practical advice for both teaching academics and institutional leadership to

address concerns over the quality of teaching and support, especially for students from low

socioeconomic status backgrounds. The BLASST project “refined and validated national

standards to support and enhance quality learning and teaching by sessional staff” (Harvey,

2014, p.9).

The project approach In this study, the term educators was chosen to describe the people teaching higher

education classes who had no formal teacher training qualifications. The term teacher is

used only to describe a person who has undertaken formal teaching qualifications. This

point is important as it underlines the value and recognition of formal teacher education

skills in the higher education context. Although out of the scope of this project, the

difference in the quality and teaching abilities, skills and practises of higher education

practitioners with formal teaching qualifications and those without, appears to be a

significant variable worthy of further investigation.


The aim of this project was to investigate whether providing an ongoing, scaffolded

professional learning program to higher education educators who had little or no formal

teacher training and who were teaching large, first year foundation units led to more

engaged teaching. At Victoria University (VU), the targeted first year foundation units were

originally to be taught by sessional staff only, but staffing changes meant that a mix of

sessional and permanent staff taught the units. At Edith Cowan University (ECU), selected

first year foundation units were taught largely by sessional staff.

An existing professional learning and teaching framework from the USA, the Advancement

via Individual Determination (AVID) college/university readiness program, was selected to

test its viability for the Australian higher education context. The AVID program has been

operating for over 35 years and currently has over 1 million students across 46 states and

territories in the USA. The AVID for Higher Education (AHE) component of the AVID program

was developed about six years ago in response to requests from universities in the USA that

had often enrolled AVID secondary school students and found them to be better prepared

and more successful than non-AVID students.

Delivery of the AHE professional learning sessions uses an immersion model where the

theory underpinning explicit teaching strategies is explained, and the strategies are then

modelled and practised by the participants. Sessional and permanent staff from VU in

Victoria and ECU in Western Australia were given the option of attending between one and

six professional learning sessions. The sessions were offered over two years to help the

educators build a repertoire of inclusive, explicit teaching strategies. Sessional teaching staff

were paid for the hours they attended the professional learning sessions at a rate equivalent

to marking or other activities. They were also provided with ongoing professional learning

support from coordinators through the semester to build a collaborative professional

learning community across discipline areas within their own university and with colleagues

from the other university.

An earlier paper, The use of Explicit Teaching Strategies for Academic Staff and Students in

Bioscience Foundation Subjects (Tangalakis, Hughes, Brown, & Dickson, 2014) published

during the project provides detail about the customisation of the AHE professional learning

model for Australia. It explains how the AVID explicit learning and teaching framework was

implemented at VU for the Bioscience Foundation units. In addition to that paper, this

report provides a summary of the findings from both case study sites, VU and ECU. The data

have been used to formulate two short vignettes that demonstrate the implementation of

the AHE professional learning model and its impact as experienced by the participants (see

Appendices B and C). The data for these vignettes were derived from semi-structured

interviews with educators, workshop attendance data, survey data, and video recorded

teaching observations. ECU data contains students’ evaluation survey data from the

coordinator of the unit. These data were collected over a three-year period prior to and post


AVID training. VU data contains the data on pass rates for one of the target units pre- and

post-AVID. Following the case studies, three additional findings are discussed:

The impact of the AHE professional learning program on teacher capabilities and

identities.

The economic argument: The return to universities on investing in professional learning

for sessional teaching staff.

The case for videos of effective higher education teaching: How do educators with little

or no teaching training know what effective higher education teaching looks like?

Summary of findings This research investigated the issue of professional learning from both sessional and

permanent teaching staff perspectives. The focus was on analysing the educators’

experiences in terms of their teaching capabilities and their identities as educators.

Traditionally, teaching has not been as highly valued as research in universities. This project

sought to give voice to the professional teaching experience and professional learning needs

of these educators. Consistent with findings in the Southwell (2012), Devlin et al. (2012),

and Harvey (2014) reports, findings from this research identified the need for universities

that wish to improve the quality of teaching to commit resources and to foster a change of

culture, which encompass both teaching and institutional factors.

Findings relating to teaching factors

No single professional learning activity can provide a short cut to the years required to

master the complex art of becoming and remaining an effective, accomplished teacher.

Professional learning programs should themselves be engaging and model effective

teaching practices that can immediately be implemented in the next class.

The AHE collaborative, inquiry-based, practical model of professional learning was

positively received by participants and customisable for Australia.

Effective higher education professional learning programs should include a mix of

generic teaching strategies and examples customised for specific disciplines.

Video examples of highly effective higher education teaching are necessary. Video

examples viewed in a context that includes clearly articulated standards for effective

higher education teaching and that encourages a culture of supportive peer observation

may help raise the quality of higher education teaching.

Findings relating to institutional factors

Paying sessional staff to attend professional learning appears to provide a return on

investment in terms of improving the quality and engagement in teaching over time, but

payment alone is not sufficient to ensure institutional factors allow all staff to attend

and invest in professional learning opportunities. The tenuous nature of sessional

employment disempowers educators to commit to or regularly attend.


Professional learning for both sessional and permanent staff needs to be collaborative,

practical, sustained, scaffolded, supported and ongoing.

Changing teaching practice is hard, especially when those teaching have no formal

teaching training to draw upon.


Table of contents

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 3

List of acronyms used ................................................................................................................ 4

Executive summary .................................................................................................................... 5

Background ............................................................................................................................ 5

The project approach ............................................................................................................. 5

Summary of findings .............................................................................................................. 7

Tables ....................................................................................................................................... 10

Project context and aims ......................................................................................................... 11

Project context ..................................................................................................................... 11

Purpose of this project – the project questions .................................................................. 11

Project approach and methodology used ............................................................................... 13

The Learning and Teaching Framework ............................................................................... 13

Delivery of AHE professional learning program................................................................... 14

The AHE participants ............................................................................................................ 16

Project outputs and findings .................................................................................................... 18

Outputs ................................................................................................................................ 18

Key findings .......................................................................................................................... 19

Contribution to existing knowledge..................................................................................... 22

Interdisciplinary linkages ..................................................................................................... 22

Critical success factors ......................................................................................................... 23

Implementation in other institutions .................................................................................. 23

Project impact, dissemination and evaluation ........................................................................ 26

Impact .................................................................................................................................. 26

Dissemination ...................................................................................................................... 27

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................ 27

Suggestions for further research and development ............................................................ 27

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 27

References ............................................................................................................................... 29

Appendix A:

Certification………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………31

Appendix B: VU Case Study ...................................................................................................... 32

Appendix C: ECU Case Study .................................................................................................... 34

Appendix D: External evaluator’s report ................................................................................. 37


Tables

Table 1: ECU professional learning schedule ........................................................................ 15

Table 2: VU professional learning schedule ........................................................................... 15

Table 3: VU Arts Unit Pass Rates ............................................................................................ 33

Table 4: Selected Items from ECU Student Evaluation Survey .............................................. 35


Project context and aims

Project context Higher education institutions across Australia employ large numbers of teaching staff, many

having minimal or no teaching qualifications. As the 2014 Benchmarking Leadership and

Advancement of Standards for Sessional Teaching (BLASST) report noted: Up to 50 % of

teaching in Australian universities is provided by sessional staff (Percy et al, 2008). At

individual departmental levels, this can rise to levels of 80% and more (Harvey et al, 2005).

Sessional staff members do not have the same opportunities as ongoing staff to access

learning and teaching professional development programs. In some universities, these less

experienced and temporary teaching staff are given the most important classes – large

undergraduate classes of first-year, foundation units. “Estimates show that 40 per cent to 60

per cent of undergraduate teaching is now tasked to causation [sic] sessional academic

staff” (Matthews, 2014, p. 1). Teaching by sessional staff has typically not been highly

valued by universities (Bexley et al., 2011, p. 46). In the last six years, at least three Office of

Learning and Teaching (OLT) reports have focused on the need to improve the quality of

higher education teaching (Chalmers, 2010; Hirschberg, Lye, Davies, & Johnston, 2011;

Probert, 2015).

Purpose of this project – the project questions This project investigated whether the Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID)

professional learning framework could be adapted for an Australian context to stimulate

greater engagement in higher education learning and teaching that leads to improvements

in the quality of both. The focus was on higher education teachers who had had little or no

formal teacher training and who taught large, first year foundation units. Typically, but not

always, these were sessional teaching staff. Shortly after this project commenced, one of

the case study sites, VU, experienced extensive staff restructuring. As a result, some of the

identified first year units that were originally to be taught by sessional staff were re-

timetabled to use permanent staff. This project readjusted to offer professional learning for

both sessional and permanent staff who taught these large first-year foundation units.

In particular, this research picks up on a specific issue raised in the BLASST report (Harvey

2014) on the need to identify effective higher education teaching practices and share them

more widely. For sessional teaching staff, this is a particular issue given they are often only

on campus for their actual teaching contact hours and do not receive much, if any,

professional learning during the semester and have limited interaction with other

colleagues. As Matthews points out:

Regardless of who is teaching, however, building teaching capacity is a process that

unfolds over time…. Responding to the changing knowledge, abilities and


motivations of students is difficult and is at the heart of teaching…the capacity for

university teaching develops over time and with experience (Matthews, 2014, p. 2).

The AVID learning and teaching framework and AVID for Higher Education (AHE)

professional learning program were selected because AVID has been operating successfully

in the USA as a not-for-profit whole school and university teaching and learning

improvement system for more than 36 years. The AVID framework is constructed around

well-researched, evidence-based, effective explicit teaching strategies. AHE was developed

about six years ago in response to requests from universities in the USA that had enrolled

AVID secondary school students and often found them to be better prepared and more

successful than non-AVID students. AHE is implemented in over 40 universities across 13

USA states. http://www.avid.org/higher-education.ashx

This project provided evidence for the following questions:

1. Does providing ongoing professional learning using the AVID for Higher

Education (AHE) explicit teaching framework stimulate more engaged teaching?

2. Is there a return on investment for a university from providing

regular/continuous, supported professional learning to sessional and permanent

teaching staff?

3. Is there value in building a prototype database of effective higher education

teaching video exemplars that could be further developed to build professional

learning activities around them?


Project approach and methodology used Sessional and permanent staff from two universities in different Australian states, Victoria

University (VU) in Victoria and Edith Cowan University (ECU) in Western Australia, were

given the option of attending between one and six professional learning sessions offered

over two years to build a repertoire of inclusive, explicit teaching strategies using the

Advancement via Individual Determination’s (AVID) for Higher Education (AHE) learning and

teaching framework and program. Sessional teaching staff were paid for the hours they

attended the professional learning sessions at a rate of $37.49 per hour, which is the rate

equivalent to marking or other activities. In some cases, they were also provided with

additional professional learning support from unit or course coordinators through the

semester with the aim of building a collaborative professional learning community across

discipline areas within their own university and together with colleagues from the other

university. Although this was not mandated in the aims of the project, where it occurred, it

proved to be an important additional level of ongoing professional learning support.

Quantitative and qualitative data were collected using anonymous survey data, individual,

semi-structured interviews conducted at different points in the research with two different

members of the research team, attendance data, and a small number of teacher

observations that were captured on video. The videos provided evidence about the

potential value in building a prototype database of effective higher education teaching

video exemplars that could be further developed to create professional learning activities.

Using the AVID learning and teaching framework, a number of illustrations of effective

higher education practice were edited for each of the practices. Having multiple examples of

each of the practices as taught in different disciplines illustrates that there is no one “right”

way to teach, but rather shows how effective higher education teaching is achieved by

educators considering a number of factors for each class and every student at every contact

period. Such considerations include both student and institutional factors (Brinkworth,

McCann, Matthews, & Nordstrom, 2008; Coates & Goedegebuure, 2012; Devlin et al., 2012;

Henard & Leprince-Ringquet, 2008; Kofod, Quinnell, Rifkin, & Whitaker, 2008; Krause, 2014;

Reason, Terenzini, & Domingo, 2006).

The Learning and Teaching Framework The AVID learning and teaching framework uses an acronym, WICOR, which encompasses:

Writing for purpose

Inquiry-based learning

Collaborative Learning strategies

Organisational skills

Critical Reading strategies.


The WICOR learning and teaching framework promotes engaging, interactive learning

activities that use inquiry-based strategies to stimulate deeper learning, facilitated by

collaborative learning strategies. The WICOR framework builds a common language around

learning and teaching for students, teachers and their communities that is shared across

AVID schools and universities. This approach is consistent with strategies identified in

related literature (Brinkworth et al., 2008; Coates & Goedegebuure, 2012; Henard &

Leprince-Ringquet, 2008; Kofod et al., 2008; Krause, 2014; Reason et al., 2006). AVID’s suite

of explicit teaching strategies builds teachers’ and students’ metacognitive thinking

capabilities through the use of strategies like Socratic methodologies that engage students

in dialogue in ways that promote critical thinking and that progressively work towards more

abstract levels of thinking.

Promoting student engagement and learning communities is also likely to

enhance the quality of student learning. Universities or teachers that give

students incentives to study in groups will improve learning outcomes ... Indeed

this teaching strategy enables the students to see the topic from multiple

perspectives, thus gaining more deep understanding of the subject. (Kofod et al.,

2008, p.28).

An OECD report investigating quality teaching in higher education described the

fundamental strategies upon which AVID’s WICOR framework is built. The report, Equity and

Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools (OECD, 2012) cited

AVID as a case study of excellence for providing a highly effective college/university

readiness system. AVID focuses particularly on diverse, disadvantaged and underachieving

students seeking to raise their aspirations, sense of identity, academic, social and emotional

capacity so that ultimately they are fully prepared for university entry and are equipped

with the necessary social and academic skills to be successful once they get to university.

AVID is a system of school-wide reform with specific programs for implementation at

primary and secondary schools and post-secondary institutions.

Delivery of AHE professional learning program Delivery of the AHE professional learning sessions used an immersion approach where the

teaching strategies were modelled and practised by the participants in every professional

learning session. Sessional staff members at both universities were paid for the hours they

attended the professional learning sessions. For both VU and ECU permanent staff

attendance at the professional learning sessions was timetabled around their availability.

For sessional teaching staff, their attendance was dependent upon whether or not they

were to be employed at the start of each semester to teach in the target units. That decision

was typically not made until the week before semester began and student numbers were

confirmed. This ultimately restricted the availability of sessional staff to attend professional

learning sessions no matter how worthwhile they felt the sessions would be.


Table 1: ECU professional learning schedule

DATE

No. TRAINING DAYS

ECU TYPE OF SESSION No. PARTICIPANTS

Feb 2013 2 days initial training 8

April 2013 2 days Booster 10

July 2013 2 days mid-semester new staff initial training 7

Sept 2013 2 days Booster 23

Dec 2013 3 days AVID Australia Summer Institute 38

Feb 2014 2 days Beginner and intermediate sessions 8

July 2014 1 day + optional day Staff chose to attend one or two days 20


TOTALS 17-18 days

Table 2: VU professional learning schedule

DATE No. TRAINING DAYS TYPE OF SESSION No. PARTICIPANTS

Feb 2013 2 days + 1 day initial training – 2 days for College

H&B; 1 day College of Arts

18

April 2013 1 day Booster 9

July 2013 1 day mid-semester new staff initial training 30

Sept 2013 1 day cancelled Booster 0


Feb 2014 2 days Beginner and intermediate sessions 45

May 2014 1 day Booster for College Arts 5

July 2014 2 days Beginner and intermediate sessions 45


TOTAL 14-15 days

Time in each professional learning session was provided to review teaching materials to

determine how the AVID strategies could be embedded in the target units. An initial two-

day training was provided before semester commenced with a one-day follow-up workshop

provided mid-semester. This model was repeated for semester two, and the same process

was applied in the subsequent year. At the end of each year, an additional three-day

intensive training was offered through AVID’s main professional learning training event,

known as the AVID Australia Summer Institute. Fees for attendance at the Summer Institute

were paid for each participant, and sessional staff members were also paid an hourly rate

for attending each day of the Summer Institute.

Participants were taught a range of explicit teaching strategies that aimed to increase

student engagement in deeper dialogue about key concepts. Educators were introduced to

and practised teaching strategies that promoted collaborative and critical thinking skills


progressively working towards promoting higher levels of thinking. Participants practised

how to make explicit the metacognitive thinking processes for analysing increasingly

complex ideas incorporating real-world connections, encouraging students to become more

independent learners motivated to take intellectual risks. Participants practised how to

scaffold lectures, tutorials, seminars and laboratory exercises using collaborative learning

and small group strategies to provide more interactive learning experiences that better

engaged students in deeper learning. Particular emphasis was given to the specific

strategies of critical reading and writing, which AVID materials teach explicitly for each

discipline. In addition, participants were trained to make explicit vital organizational skills

necessary for tertiary academic success, such as the Cornell note-taking system.

The AHE participants At both VU and ECU, the participating faculties and colleges in this project made a financial

commitment to have a core group of staff trained in the delivery and use of AHE explicit

teaching strategies for specific units. At VU, target units in the College of Health and

Biomedicine (H&B) and the College of the Arts were identified by academic, unit and course

coordinators based on need identified through trend analysis of progress and attrition rates.

The H&B foundation units were targeted because the College was experiencing a high

attrition rate in first year. Staff in Health and Biomedicine had been aware that significant

areas of its first year teaching had relied on sessional staff with limited teacher training or

experience and it was difficult to attract any staff to teach first years. The target College of

Arts unit was a foundation unit required for all students undertaking a Bachelor of Arts

degree. It too had experienced variable progression rates and was rewritten several times.

Attendance in the AHE professional learning for both VU Colleges was optional.

Conversely, permanent and sessional staff members from ECU’s School of Communication

and Arts (SCA) were required to attend the AHE professional learning program in order to

teach in the target unit. Additional teaching staff from ECU’s School of Education and

UniPrep opted in to attend sessions. The UniPrep cohort reported that many of the AHE

explicit teaching strategies were familiar given that their teaching focused on providing

additional social and academic scaffolds for students who had not initially met requirements

for direct entry in to ECU university courses. The School of Education cohort reported that

AHE pedagogical approaches reinforced strategies they were using in teacher education

courses and added some teaching practices that they would incorporate into their teaching.

The SCA staff targeted a first-year foundation unit that was experiencing high levels of

disengagement, poor attendance rates, and low levels of preparation by students when they

did attend. Students usually had not done any of the pre-reading tasks prior to class.

Two staff members from The Victoria Institute qualified in the USA as AHE staff developers

and delivered the AHE professional learning program customised for Australian contexts.

One of these staff developers had a formal secondary school teaching qualification. They


taught the professional learning sessions and offered additional support to the pilot group

of sessional and permanent teaching staff throughout the project trial.


Project outputs and findings

Outputs The project deliverables were:

1. Adaptation and trial of AVID AHE professional development program with sessional staff

tutoring in first year units in a range of disciplines.

This deliverable was achieved. AVID’s AHE program was successfully adapted for

Australian educators and delivered at two sites over a two-year trial period. All of the

educators who participated in the professional learning program reported that the

training was very useful and that they had incorporated explicit teaching strategies into

their teaching. They reported that their teaching was now more interactive and

students appeared to be more engaged in their learning as a result. In the final year, a

random sample of classes from both universities were observed and filmed by the

project leader. To varying degrees, where the educators were observed explicitly using

high engagement interactive AHE teaching and learning strategies, students were more

actively engaged in the learning activities than had been observed previously.

2. Development of prototype of practical resources to improve professional learning

activities across the sector, including: a suite of video exemplars on tertiary teaching

strategies; and professional learning workshops utilising the video exemplars.

This deliverable was achieved. A prototype website housing a suite of video exemplars

showing various AHE explicit teaching strategies as they are taught across different

disciplines can be found at www.vu.edu.au/the-victoria-institute/publications. These

video exemplars could be incorporated in subsequent professional learning workshops.

3. Benchmarking of project findings with findings from AVID universities in the USA, where

similar projects are being coordinated.

As the project progressed, the customisation of the AHE program for the Australian

context meant that this deliverable was no longer relevant. The way that the AHE

framework was adapted for the Australia universities did not provide data that was

similar enough to the USA model to allow for meaningful benchmarking activities.

4. Development of a project website to disseminate resources and build a professional

learning community.

This deliverable was achieved. A full report on the project and the two case studies are

available on the project website at www.vu.edu.au/the-victoria-institute/publications.

VU Case Study. This vignette describes how AHE strategies were incorporated and

practised in one of the foundation units in the College of Arts. This unit is compulsory

http://www.vu.edu.au/the-victoria-institute/publications

https://www.vu.edu.au/the-victoria-institute/publications


for several courses and typically has an enrolment of about 450 students (see

Appendix B).

ECU Case Study. The team at ECU focused their implementation of AVID on one of

their first year core units. The unit’s main focus was creativity, however, being a first

year core unit it also aimed to develop academic practices and metacognition. This

feature was recognised as particularly well aligned with the AVID learning and

teaching framework (see Appendix C).

5. Additional dissemination: journal articles, conference presentations and written report.

Brown, C.,Tangalakis, K. and Hughes, K., (2013). Engaged Teaching for Engaged Students:

Explicit, Inclusive AVID. 16th International First Year Higher Education Conference.

Wellington, New Zealand.

Hughes, K. and Brown, C. (2014). Strengthening the Intersections Between Secondary and Tertiary

Education in Australia: Building Cultural Capital, Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice,

11(2). Available at: http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol11/iss2/6

Tangalakis, K., Hughes, K., Brown, C. & Dickson, K. (2014). Explicit Teaching Strategies for

Science Foundation Subjects. International Journal of Innovation in Science and

Mathematics Education, 22(3), 42-51. http://www.ijisme.org/

Brown, C. (2015). What’s the best way to take notes on your tablet or laptop? The

Conversation. http://theconversation.com/whats-the-best-most-effective-way-to-take-

notes-41961. 14th July 2015. (Impact: >70,000 hits, tweets and reprints)

Brown, C. (2015). What’s the best, most effective way to take notes? The Conversation.

http://theconversation.com/whats-the-best-most-effective-way-to-take-notes-41961.

22nd May 2015. (Impact: >300,000 hits, tweets and reprints)

Key findings

AVID learning and teaching framework was successfully implemented

The evidence-based, AVID explicit learning and teaching framework, WICOR, built around a

collaborative, inquiry-based model of teaching and learning was successfully implemented.

Analysis of the data showed that all interviewees valued the professional learning sessions.

Both sessional and permanent teaching staff from VU and ECU reported that their teaching

capabilities and sense of teacher identity were enhanced by undertaking the AHE

professional learning program. Most participants believed that the positive impact on their

teaching was due to particular features of this type of professional learning including:

http://www.ijisme.org/

http://theconversation.com/whats-the-best-most-effective-way-to-take-notes-41961.%2014th%20July%202015

http://theconversation.com/whats-the-best-most-effective-way-to-take-notes-41961.%2014th%20July%202015

http://theconversation.com/whats-the-best-most-effective-way-to-take-notes-41961.%2022nd%20May%202015

http://theconversation.com/whats-the-best-most-effective-way-to-take-notes-41961.%2022nd%20May%202015


Modelling of explicit teaching practices in an interactive, practical, hands-on workshop

style format that enabled participants to practise strategies as they learned them.

Timing of the professional learning activities before and during teaching semesters.

Providing ongoing, supported, scaffolded professional learning rather than ad hoc,

disconnected, one-off activities.

Modelling and practising an inclusive, collaborative approach to learning and teaching.

Learning and practising a range of strategies anchored in AVID’s WICOR framework.

No single professional learning activity can provide a short cut to the years required to

master the complex art of becoming and remaining an effective, accomplished teacher.

The reported impact on participants’ teaching capabilities depended on the participants’

levels of higher education teaching experience. Teachers who had more than five years

higher education experience reported that the workshops provided an effective scaffold

that enabled them to:

Learn new teaching strategies that they could apply immediately to their classes.

Build on their existing knowledge of effective higher education teaching practice.

Reinforce good practices already being used.

Adapt and modify higher education teaching strategies to suit their discipline area.

Educators who had no teaching training and less than five years of higher education

teaching experience were often sessional or new recruits to their university. They reported

that the AHE professional learning sessions helped them to build an initial understanding of

the importance of developing foundation skills and theories of learning and teaching that

they did not previously have, which helped restructure their teaching initially. Educators

noted that having background knowledge of the science behind the complex art of teaching

was essential. They observed that it was unlikely that their teaching would improve with

random “snapshot” training. They commented that their teaching was more likely to

improve if they could access ongoing support and mentoring, and if they had the

opportunity to form professional learning communities that would allow them to reflect and

improve on their teaching practices.

Professional learning needs to be collaborative, practical, sustained, scaffolded, supported

and ongoing

Consistent with other research, the AHE professional learning framework reinforced several

important conditions required to build the competence and confidence of teaching staff,

particularly those without any formal teaching qualifications and minimal experience.

Increasingly, research into academic development suggests sustained,

ongoing teaching development activities are far more effective in

transforming how academics teach than one-off workshops or short programs

(Matthews, 2014, p.2).


Professional learning programs should model effective teaching practices

Professional learning programs should themselves be engaging and model effective teaching

practices that can immediately be implemented in the participant’s next class.

As Tangalakis et al. (2014) indicated, the AHE professional learning program and explicit

teaching strategies prompted higher levels of engagement in teaching by higher education

teaching staff because they had enjoyed learning the strategies as they were modelled and

had practised them in an interactive, scaffolded way that enabled them to apply them

immediately. Because participants saw value in the AHE training, they were motivated to

reflect on students’ learning and their teaching throughout the semester.

Experienced academics who participated in this study have started to lead

change in their discipline areas and formed communities of practice. In

response, student satisfaction with teaching appears to be improving

(Tangalakis et al., 2014, p.48).

The AHE collaborative, inquiry-based, practical model was positively received

The AHE collaborative, inquiry-based, practical model of professional learning was very

positively received by participants. The evidence-based, AVID explicit learning and teaching

framework, WICOR, built around a collaborative, inquiry-based model of learning and

teaching was successfully implemented. Evidence for this is that teaching staff from both

universities will continue using the AHE teaching strategies. A second College at VU plans to

use the AHE framework, strategies and AHE professional learning model in 2016 to create a

new foundation unit in another Bachelor program. Participants felt that the WICOR

framework provided a range of collaborative teaching practices that improved the

interactivity of the traditional lecture and tutorial structures. As a result, they reported that

students appeared to be more engaged and participated more actively in learning tasks.

Higher education professional learning requires both generic and customised strategies

Feedback from participants indicates that higher education professional learning requires a

mix of generic teaching strategies and customised examples for specific disciplines. The

initial professional learning sessions were offered to a mix of participants from different

discipline groups, Arts, Education and Health Sciences, who participated and worked

together. While the inclusion of different discipline groups was successful in building a

professional learning community across the universities, difficulties arose when examples

were given in one particular discipline. For example, strategies were modelled to change a

standard tutorial format from being teacher-centred to building in more student interaction.

The introduction to these strategies used a social science example, but the participants from

Health and Biomedicine reported they found it difficult to apply the same strategy in their

tutorials without seeing a specific example in their discipline context. It took two years

before educators in the Biomedicine unit developed the confidence and skill to embed these

practices more intentionally and frequently in their teaching.


Talking to staff about set questions in tutorials is finally paying off. Staff are

changing the way they teach their tutes!! Tutes are becoming collaborative

sessions with better integration of [lecture] material. I think our discussions at

AVID sessions and thereafter have obviously influenced this change (report

received from VU course coordinator, March 2015).

Krause’s (2014) research on “academic staff perspectives on disciplinary communities and

skill development in disciplinary contexts” also found this to be a complex issue. “Findings

highlight discipline-based patterns in staff views about the value of generic skills” (Krause,

2014, p. 2).

Contribution to existing knowledge This project explored findings from three reports focused on improving the quality of higher

education teaching and examined some of the recommendations made in each. The

Australian Learning and Teaching Council’s (ALTC), Good practice report: revitalising the

academic workforce, noted that: “… the challenge is to equip all academics, not just some,

with teaching responsibilities for effective learning by their students in the 21st century”

(Southwell, 2012, p. 3). This report made recommendations for improving the quality and

status of higher education teaching.

A second project funded by a strategic priority grant from the ALTC, (now the OLT), Effective

teaching and support of students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds: Resources for

Australian higher education (Devlin et al., 2012) advised universities to prioritise better

teaching for students from these previously identified backgrounds, in particular.

A third report, Benchmarking Leadership and Advancement of Standards for Sessional

Teaching, observed that:

The ongoing importance of sessional staff as teachers in higher education in

Australia, and internationally, required a mechanism to identify effective

practices and share them more widely. There was a need for multi-level,

multi-disciplinary and cross-institutional standards (Harvey, 2014, p. 4).

This project’s intent and strategies were informed by these projects, national and

international literature relating to the teaching challenges of wider participation in higher

education, and literature relating to improving first year higher education student

experience. Detail is available in the full project report at www.vu.edu.au/the-victoria-

institute/publications.

Interdisciplinary linkages The broader project team comprised of an interdisciplinary team of teaching and research

staff recruited from across VU and ECU. The collaboration of the various groups within and

across both universities became a highlight of the project as the project sought to bridge




silos and built a professional learning community of higher education educators who were

collaborative, cross-disciplinary, and collegiate. Providing ongoing professional learning

combining both generic skills training and discipline-specific material stimulated more

engaged teaching. The sessions engaged all staff and the collegiality shown across the

discipline groups were frequently nominated as a strength and a highlight.

Critical success factors An important difference between VU and ECU ’s implementation of the AHE trial was that

the Associate Director of Teaching and Learning in the Faculty of Education and Arts at ECU

directed the AHE trial and oversaw the administrative and organisation of the professional

learning sessions. With a single point of contact who was a senior academic in that Faculty,

the ECU professional learning sessions were intentional, better organised and well

communicated in advance to potential participants. At VU, four course coordinators from

two different Colleges were required to manage their regular responsibilities as well as

organise and coordinate the professional learning sessions. During the period of this

research, VU also underwent a restructure and reduction of professional staff across the

institution, which meant that time consuming administrative tasks, such as organising and

coordinating training, fell to the course coordinators. This proved to be less efficient.

Implementation in other institutions In this project, the AHE WICOR strategies were customised across several higher education

disciplines to deliver supported, ongoing professional learning sessions in Australia. The AHE

professional learning model has been employed in many institutions in the USA and this

project has demonstrated its potential to contribute to enhancement of learning and

teaching in an Australian context.

This project reinforced previous research findings that universities wanting to improve the

quality of teaching need to commit resources and foster a change of culture. In particular,

institutional factors deemed to be important to effect institutional change, such as those

identified in the Devlin, et al. (2012) report include:

Articulating and promoting higher education teaching standards.

Identifying senior staff who can direct, value, support and encourage sessional and

permanent teaching staff to participate in professional learning activities.

Building supported, ongoing professional learning programs for all teaching staff,

and particularly for those who have no formal teaching training.

Supporting professional learning programs that are intentional, scaffolded,

continuous, valued and supported financially with appropriately qualified

instructors/teachers/mentors.

Putting structures in place to support and prioritise research and ongoing

professional learning around highly effective higher education teaching.


Providing time for all teaching academics to plan curriculum and teaching material

responsive to the inclusive learning needs of more diverse student populations.

Providing greater support for sessional teaching staff within their discipline and the

broader university.

Providing financial and structural support and incentives for sessional teaching staff

to engage with regular professional learning programs to improve the quality of

higher education teaching.

Identifying leaders who can refocus university priorities that develop academics as

highly skilled teachers as well as academics as highly skilled researchers.

In the VU case study, pass rates for this unit rose significantly from 53 per cent (N=58) in

2012 to 81.01 per cent (N=179) in 2013 after AHE strategies were embedded, particularly

the community building activities at the start of semester. An observation shared by all

tutors in the unit was that the improvement in the pass rates was indicative of more

engaged students who were responding well to the new interactive approach to learning

and teaching. The unit coordinator observed an important effect on the way the tutors were

now teaching and collaborating. Having the common AHE framework encouraged the team

to reflect and discuss their teaching experiences regularly using a shared language, which

was not a practice they had engaged in previously before participating in the AHE training.

Similarly, in the ECU case study, student unit evaluation data showed a significant

improvement on most items in the survey, which educators attributed to using AHE

strategies in an explicit and coordinated way. Educators spoke about the students’

responsibility for learning increasing significantly from using the AHE strategies. They felt

that this greater responsibility came particularly from having established stronger personal

relationships within the class, more collaborative activities, and conveying an explicit

purpose for learning tasks. Educators also reported that using the AHE scaffolded critical

reading strategies resulted in more engaged students and consequentially a more satisfying

teaching experience. All of the staff found the AHE training very beneficial, and that through

the AHE professional learning activities, they became more engaged with their teaching. For

the staff with more than a decade of teaching experiences, learning about AHE teaching

strategies meant acquiring a very useful set of practices and a consolidation and

improvement of strategies they had been using already. For staff with little teaching

experience this professional learning experience had a significant impact on their

engagement with their teaching, their sense of capability and feelings of confidence. One of

the sessional staff in reflecting on the continuity aspect of AVID training emphasised the

importance of ongoing professional learning in relation to building professional learning

communities within their faculty.


Findings against the questions investigated

1. Does providing ongoing professional learning using the AVID for Higher Education (AHE)

explicit teaching framework stimulate more engaged teaching?

It appears that implementing the AHE explicit teaching strategies stimulates more

engaged teaching, but further longitudinal research is recommended to see how

learning is sustained over time. More generally, it appears that paying sessional staff to

attend professional learning appears to provide a return on investment in terms of

improving the quality and engagement in teaching over time, but payment alone is not

sufficient to ensure institutional factors allow all staff to attend and invest in

professional learning opportunities. The tenuous nature of sessional employment, in

particular, disempowers educators to commit to or regularly attend professional

learning activities.

2. Is there a return on investment for a university from providing regular/continuous,

supported professional learning to sessional and permanent teaching staff?

From the data in this project, it appears that there is a return on investment, but further

longitudinal research is recommended and suggestions for how to conduct future

research is discussed in the full project report available at www.vu.edu.au/the-victoria-

institute/publications

3. Is there value in building a prototype database of effective higher education teaching

video exemplars that could be further developed to build professional learning activities

around them?

Findings from this project indicate that both experienced permanent and sessional staff

valued having videos of effective higher education teaching to analyse and draw upon. It

is likely that a database of effective Australian higher education video exemplars that

focuses on a repertoire of teaching strategies illustrating effective teaching practices

being taught across a range of disciplines would make a valuable contribution to higher

education professional learning programs and would improve the quality of learning and

teaching. Ideally, video exemplars of effective higher education teaching should also

include a set of clear teaching standards and encourage supportive peer observation

with accompanying observation frameworks that educators could use to reflect on their

own and colleagues’ practice in order to raise the quality of learning and teaching.




Project impact, dissemination and evaluation

Impact This project has had a positive impact for project team members and the sector more

generally. All participants who were trained with the AVID teaching strategies reported that

they continued to use the AVID explicit teaching strategies after the project ended as they

felt using the explicit teaching strategies was improving their teaching and consequently,

student learning. Since the conclusion of the official data collection period, participants have

subsequently reported additional positive changes to their learning and teaching practice.

These educators reported that students’ feedback in their 2015 Unit and Course Teaching

Evaluations was more positive and they received higher satisfaction ratings than in previous

years. AVID’s explicit teaching strategies and the AVID professional learning model has

subsequently been implemented in a second VU College for delivery in 2016. Key staff in

those units attended the AVID Summer Institute in December 2015 and will implement a

new, revised unit with AVID’s student-centred, high engagement teaching strategies

embedded throughout. The educators are using the collaborative strategies to work as a

team and will meet weekly to ensure their teaching across the unit is consistent, highly

engaged and student focused.

The relevance of customising a USA-developed university readiness system for an Australian

context shows potential for growth. Having attended a presentation by members of the

project team on the AHE project, another university in Melbourne has requested AHE

training for several groups of staff across that university. Customised workshops will be

provided on site in 2016.

A significant impact of this project is a connection between the Victoria Institute and

Professor Eric Mazur, Harvard University, winner of the 2014 Minerva Prize. The Minerva

Academy is an honorary institution “dedicated to promoting and rewarding extraordinary

advancements and innovation in higher education teaching around the world”

(http://institute.minervaproject.com/). Professor Mazur has invited the project leader to

collaborate and develop a professional learning program for building high engagement

learning and teaching strategies with peer support using electronic, interactive e-texts.

On a personal level, participating in this project assisted another VU staff member to

achieve promotion to Associate Professor. Two staff members from Health and Biomedicine

published or are in the process of publishing academic papers that focus on the learning and

teaching of their discipline rather than their usual publication field of discipline content.

Interdisciplinary research partnerships focused on improving learning and teaching across

disciplines including Business, Health and Biomedicine, Education, Creative Arts and Science

developed and are continuing as a result of this project. Similarly, at ECU, several staff have


been professionally acknowledged and rewarded with a university prize for their work that

acknowledged their contributions to this OLT project.

Dissemination To date, the project has yielded two published journal articles, one international conference

presentation, and two related articles published in the international e-publication, The

Conversation with very high impact results. Two more journal papers are being written

based on this project and it is anticipated that they will be submitted for publication in 2016.

The two case studies are available for download from the project website. The prototype

website with video examples of educators using AVID’s explicit teaching strategies in

different contexts is available at www.vu.edu.au/the-victoria-institute/publications. A

summary of these outputs can be found earlier in this report.

Evaluation A reference group was established and met at critical points during the research. The

reference group members included AVID Center AHE curriculum and staff developers, the

Dean of an Education faculty from a university external to this project, and project team

members from both case study universities. An external evaluator was appointed to the

project and his summative report was prepared at the conclusion of the research period.

Suggestions for further research and development Further research is needed to determine the best mix of generic versus discipline-specific

professional learning models. Future research could build on developing the video

exemplars of explicit teaching strategies with online professional learning modules. A digital

repository could be developed to showcase illustrations of effective higher education

practice. The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership has developed a digital

repository to exemplify effective school teaching that illustrates the Australian professional

teaching standards and shows how effective teaching develops by career stage in different

subject areas, see: http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-

teachers/illustrations-of-practice/find-by-career-stage.

Further examples of effective higher education teaching could be gathered from across

disciplines to build a prototype website demonstrating how a digital repository with

illustrations of highly effective higher education teaching could provide continuous, online

professional learning activities for higher education educators. Further research should also

be conducted to elicit the return on investment to universities, students and the economy

from investing in professional learning for higher education educators over time.

Conclusion This project investigated whether a US professional learning program, AVID for Higher

Education that uses a teaching and learning framework of high engagement, explicit

teaching strategies, could be customised and implemented in the Australian context to raise


http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers/illustrations-of-practice/find-by-career-stage

http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers/illustrations-of-practice/find-by-career-stage


the level of engagement in teaching for sessional and permanent staff. We investigated

whether more engaged teaching improved students’ levels of engagement and success in

large first year foundation units that had previously sustained high rates of failure.

We analysed any change over time on educators’ teaching capabilities and their identities as

educators given that, traditionally, teaching has not been as highly valued as research in

universities. This project sought to give voice to the professional teaching experience and

professional learning needs of these educators. An unanticipated finding was that although

sessional staff appreciated being paid to attend professional learning activities, of greater

value to them was the act of being included in a professional learning community at their

university. Several participants stated that the initial professional learning activities opened

up opportunities for them to collaborate with permanent staff on unit redesign in a way

that valued their expertise, and this positively impacted their personal and professional

identities as educators.

The research found that the impact of the AHE professional learning program improved

educators’ capabilities and sense of identity as an educator, particularly for those educators

with little or no formal teaching training. Every unit in which the AHE strategies were

implemented with fidelity experienced significant improvement in student achievement and

evaluation data. This finding indicates that for universities there is potentially a significant

return on investment to improve both student learning and teaching outcomes by

implementing high quality, ongoing, scaffolded professional learning for sessional and

permanent teaching staff.

The research also identified the need for Australian video exemplars of effective higher

education teaching to be created for higher education staff with little or no teaching training

in order for them to be able to see a variety of examples and learn what effective higher

education teaching in their discipline might look like.

Consistent with findings in the Southwell (2012), Devlin et al. (2012), and Harvey (2014)

reports, findings from this research identified the need for universities that are serious

about improving the quality of teaching to commit resources and foster a change of culture,

which encompass both teaching and institutional factors.

Changing higher education teaching practices will take time. All students deserve high

quality teaching. To achieve this consistently requires a commitment by universities to

actively demonstrate to teaching staff that they will value the investment educators make

to improve their teaching. Old academic cultures catered for an elite group of students who

were likely to succeed regardless of how they were taught. With more diverse groups of

students now entering universities, highly effective teaching must be prioritised to ensure

all students can succeed in their learning.


References Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Beyond Bloom’s Taxonomy: Rethinking Knowledge

for the Knowledge Age. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds.),

International Handbook of Educational Change (Vol. 5, pp. 675-692). Netherlands: Springer.

Bexley, E., James, R., & Arkoudis, S. (2011). The Australian academic profession in transition:

Addressing the challenge of reconceptualising academic work and regenerating the

academic workforce. Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education.

Blasst - The Project website. (2014). Retrieved 28 October 2015, from

http://blasst.edu.au/about.html

Brinkworth, R., McCann, B., Matthews, C., & Nordstrom, K. (2008). First year expectations

and experiences: student and teacher perspectives. Higher Education. doi: 10.1007/s10734-

008-9188-3

Browne, J. (2010). Securing a sustainable future for higher education: An independent

review of Higher Education funding & student finance. London.

Chalmers, D. (2010). Rewarding and recognising quality teaching in higher education

through systematic implementation of indicators and metrics on teaching and teacher

effectiveness. In A. L. a. T. Council (Ed.). WA: UWA

Coates, H., & Goedegebuure, L. (2012). Recasting the academic workforce: why the

attractiveness of the academic profession needs to be increased and eight possible

strategies for how to go about this from an Australian perspective. Higher Education, 64,

875–889.

Costa, A. L. (1985). Developing minds: a resource book for teaching thinking. Alexandria,

Vancouver: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Devlin, M., Kift, S., Nelson, K., Smith, L., & McKay, J. (2012). Effective teaching and support

of students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds: Resources for Australian higher

education. NSW: Departmentof Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary

Education.

Harvey, M., Fraser, S., & Bowes, J. (2005). Quality teaching and sessional staff. Paper presented

at the 2005 Annual Conference of Higher Education Research and Development Society of

Australasia (HERDSA), Sydney.

Harvey, M. (2014). the blasst report. Sydney, NSW: Office for Learning and Teaching.

Henard, F., & Leprince-Ringquet, S. (2008). The path to quality teaching in higher education.

http://www1.oecd.org/edu/imhe/44150246.pdf

http://blasst.edu.au/about.html

http://www1.oecd.org/edu/imhe/44150246.pdf


Hirschberg, J., Lye, J., Davies, M., & Johnston, C. (2011). Measuring Student Experience:

Relationships between Teaching Quality Instruments (TQI) and Course Experience

Questionnaire (CEQ). NSW: Australian Learning and Teaching Council Ltd.

Kofod, M., Quinnell, R., Rifkin, W., & Whitaker, N. (2008). Is tutor training worth it?

Acknowledging conflicting agenda. Paper presented at the HERDSA: Engaging communities.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/153059702?versionId=166810234

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice,

41(4), 212-218.

Krause, K.-L. D. (2014). Challenging perspectives on learning and teaching in the disciplines:

the academic voice. Studies in Higher Education, 39(1), 2-19. doi:

10.1080/03075079.2012.690730

Matthews, K. (2014). A new look at how to teach and learn. Campus Review, (31st March

2014). http://www.campusreview.com.au/2014/03/a-new-look-at-how-to-teach-and-learn/

OECD. (2012). Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and

Schools (pp. 168). Paris: OECD.

Percy, A., Scoufis, M., Parry, S., Goody, A., Hicks, M., Macdonald, I., Martinez, K., Szorenyi-

Reischl, N., Ryan, Y., Wills, S., & Sheridan, L. (2008). The RED Report – Recognition,

Enhancement, Development – The contribution of sessional teachers to higher education.

Strawberry Hills: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.

Probert, B. (2015). The quality of Australias higher education system: How it might be

defined, improved and assured Office for Learning and Teaching Discussion Paper Series

(Discussion Paper 4). NSW: Office for Learning and Teaching.

Reason, R., Terenzini, P., & Domingo, R. (2006). First things first: Developing academic

competence in first year college. Research in higher education, 47(2), 149-175. doi:

10.1007/s11162-005-8884-4

Southwell, D. (2012). Good practice report: revitalising the academic workforce. Sydney,

NSW: Office for Learning and Teaching.

Tangalakis, K., Hughes, K., Brown, C., & Dickson, K. (2014). The use of Explicit Teaching

Strategies for Academic Staff and Students in Bioscience Foundation Subjects. International

Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 22(3), 42-51.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/153059702?versionId=166810234

http://www.campusreview.com.au/2014/03/a-new-look-at-how-to-teach-and-learn/


Appendix A: Certification

Certification by Deputy Vice-Chancellor (or equivalent)

I certify that all parts of the final report for this OLT grant provide an accurate

representation of the implementation, impact and findings of the project, and that the

report is of publishable quality.

Name: …………………………………………......…....................................

Professor Kerri-Lee Krause

Provost, Higher Education (Teaching, Research and Engagement)

Date: 29/2/2016


Appendix B: VU Case Study This vignette describes how AHE strategies were incorporated and practiced in one of the

foundation units in the College of Arts, which is compulsory for several courses and typically

has a large enrolment of about 450 students. This unit aims to build a strong foundation of

core academic skills and academic metacognition. After participating in AHE professional

learning sessions, a team of teaching staff decided to strategically embed AHE learning and

teaching strategies for each of the 12 weeks of lectures and tutorials. They worked together

with the two AVID staff developers to realign the curriculum. The unit coordinator, who is a

permanent staff member with 14 years of higher education teaching experience, together

with two of the sessional tutors who had a maximum five years of teaching experience, all

participated in at least three AHE sessions. The unit coordinator had also participated in

additional AHE sessions in previous years. One of the sessional and experienced tutors did

not attend any of the AHE sessions, but was team teaching with colleagues who participated

in several AHE professional learning activities.

In semester one, 2013, the team taught this foundation unit together. In the first four

weeks, like ECU, they focused in particular on gradually introducing community building

activities. One of the tutors reported:

...It was insane, it was absolutely unbelievable how quickly rapport was built,

how people were relating to me differently themselves, definitely there was this

air of just honesty and connection and mutual support that I don’t think I often

see until weeks, weeks in once people opened up a bit more, and it was instant

from first class and I thought that was unbelievable. (VU tutor #)

Later in the semester, different metacognitive frameworks such as Bloom’s Taxonomy

(Bereiter & M., 1998; Krathwohl, 2002) and Costa’s Levels of Questioning (Costa, 1985),

were introduced. By week four they started using strategies to promote critical thinking

through discussion and dialogue using Socratic Seminars, Philosophical Chairs and World

Café activities. Throughout the unit AHE strategies were used to develop critical reading and

writing skills in the context of the unit’s topics.

The unit coordinator used two interviews, one conducted during the project and the second

after the completion of the project, to reflect on the AVID experience. The training resulted

in two significant changes to the unit coordinator’s teaching. First, more intentional and

consistent explanations were given to students about the purpose of all activities

undertaken in the class. Second, intentional and explicit introductions were used for the

community-building activities beyond the first week of class. These two aspects together

with consistently using some of the other strategies, have had a significant impact on

students’ engagement. The unit coordinator observed an important effect on the way the

tutors now teach and collaborate. Having the common AHE framework has encouraged the


team to reflect and discuss their teaching experiences regularly using a shared language,

which was not a practice they had engaged in previous to participating in the AHE training.

All teaching staff spoke very positively about their AHE professional learning experience.

One stated:

So my experience of it, well personally it gave me a greater sense of control and

also confidence in knowing what to do to sort of make sure engagement is high

and get good outcomes out of students. In terms of how students experienced it,

they were incredibly engaged, motivated. You don’t see people sitting around

kind of just daydreaming when everyone has to stand and contribute to

something and you’re on a team, you know what I mean? (VU teaching staff #)

The pass rates for this unit have risen significantly from 53% (N=58) in 2012 to 81.01%

(N=179) in 2013 after AHE strategies were embedded. An observation shared by all tutors in

the unit was that the improvement in the pass rates is indicative of more engaged students

who are responding well to their new interactive approach to learning and teaching.

Table 3: VU Arts unit pass rates

2012 2013 2014

53% (N=58) 81.01% (N=179) 72.41% (N=145)


Appendix C: ECU Case Study The team at ECU focused their implementation of AVID on one of their first year core units.

The unit’s main subject was creativity, however, being a first year core unit it also aimed to

develop academic practices and metacognition. This feature was recognised as particularly

well aligned with the AVID learning and teaching framework.

The typical cohort enrolled in this unit comprised a significant number of non-traditional

students studying different majors from across the University. There were four staff

members teaching this unit at the time of this research, two of them as permanent staff

with at least 12 years of teaching experience and two sessional staff with at least five years

of teaching experience. None of them had any relevant previous teaching training or

qualifications. They all participated in AHE training, two of them in six sessions, and the

other two in at least three sessions.

After the initial session, the unit coordinator analysed the unit’s curriculum to incorporate

AHE learning and teaching strategies, and invited the sessional staff to contribute to that

review process. Sessional staff commented that they felt a greater sense of commitment to

the unit and felt valued as colleagues from their inclusion in this process. The AVID staff

developers and the Associate Dean Teaching and Learning also provided support for this

process.

The first significant change was an introduction of gradual community building strategies,

which were incorporated into the first four weeks of the unit instead of only in week one.

Tutors observed that these strategies were initially met with resistance from students (“it’s

a waste of time”). Tutors persisted and following the AVID principle of explicit teaching

which entails explicitly explaining to students the purpose of any given activity. Tutors

reported that the inclusion of the additional community building activities made a

significant, positive difference in the level of students’ engagement. Tutors spoke about the

students’ responsibility for learning increasing significantly from using the AHE strategies.

They felt that this greater responsibility came particularly from having established stronger

personal relationships within the class, more collaborative activities, and conveying an

explicit purpose for learning tasks. One of the tutors explained how he experienced the

impact of using AHE explicit teaching strategies:

I think it lets them in more. I think that allows them to feel more comfortable. But

also, the flip side of that is it puts more onus and responsibility on them…. But when

you give them that idea that they’ve actually got control and a bit of power, they run

with that and they turn in work that’s just exceptional. (ECU tutor #)

The second change involved the incorporation of more scaffolded critical reading strategies.

Previously students in this unit were disengaged regarding their reading assignments. They

planned to use AVID’s critical reading and writing strategies in weeks 2, 3 and 4,


incorporating a number of scaffolded, collaborative reading activities with non-traditional

texts. Tutors reported that using these strategies resulted in more engaged students and

consequentially a more satisfying teaching experience.

All of the staff found the AHE training very beneficial, and one of them stated:

It’s been a major factor in my rediscovering my love of teaching, but also my

ambition to want to do more of it. (ECU staff member #)

For the staff with more than a decade of teaching experiences, learning about AHE teaching

strategies meant acquiring a very useful set of practices and a consolidation and

improvement of strategies they had been using already.

One of the participants reflected upon the strategies:

They give you some structure and they provide you a safe base from which to then

explore teaching. So it allows you to sort of formalise and operationalize your

teaching in such a way, that you're not having to worry about what you're doing in

the classroom. (ECU staff member #)

For the staff with little teaching experience this professional learning experience had a

significant impact on their engagement with their teaching, their sense of capability and

feelings of confidence. One of the sessional tutors reflecting on the continuous aspect of

AVID training pointed out the importance of this type of professional learning in relation to

their own need for a professional learning community:

The refresher things are important. Repetition only in the sense that you come back

to that same space. The space itself, I think, is very important. Because as a sessional

staff member, I get my three hours at university this semester, because I’ve only got

the one class. I don’t get a chance to talk much or interact much with other teachers.

So for that reason, it’s incredibly valuable. (ECU sessional tutor #)

Student evaluation survey data was shared by the unit coordinator, who is an experienced

higher education teacher. The data show a significant improvement on most items in the

survey, which was attributed to using AHE strategies. In the table below are data on the

most relevant items in the survey.

Table 4: Selected Items from ECU Student Evaluation Survey

Student evaluation survey 2012 pre-AVID 2013 2014

(relevant items) Agree %

I am satisfied with this unit 54 83 76


This unit extended my learning 71 88 84

This unit challenged my thinking 73 93 85

In the students’ evaluation survey, one of the students affirmed the experience that the

tutors had described in their observations about the change in their students’ level of

engagement:

The tutorials generated my confidence and diminished my fear of public

speaking due to an extremely clear understanding of each week’s unit topic. The

tutorial discussions were stimulating as majority of the class seemed very

engaged and I made friends who share similar interest as I. (ECU student survey

respondent #)


Appendix D: External evaluator’s report Evaluation Report

Research and Development Project: Professional development program to

embed inclusive and explicit teaching practices in higher education first year

units

Peter Ling

February, 2016

The project evaluated

The project as defined in the proposal

The project evaluated was funded by the Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT) in the

Grants Program as an Innovation and Development Grant in the Research and Development

category. The project was entitled ‘Professional development program to embed inclusive

and explicit teaching practices in higher education first year units’

The project proposal stated:

The project addresses significant issues in the practice of employing sessional

staff with discipline expertise but no formal teaching qualifications as tutors in

large, first year HE units.

To raise the status and quality of teaching in these units, sessional staff will be

trained in a suite of inclusive, explicit teaching strategies with ongoing support

provided to build a professional learning community around a quality teaching

focus for tutors. Quantitative and qualitative data, including teacher

observations, will measure any improvements in teaching and learning

outcomes.

Using a long-established US professional learning and student support system

entitled AVID (Advancement via Individual Determination) this project will

ascertain whether equipping tutors with explicit, inclusive pedagogies

improves teaching quality and the student learning experience as measured

by improvements in academic progress, retention, student engagement,

student satisfaction with tutoring staff and teaching quality.

Findings from this project will be benchmarked with findings from AVID

universities in the USA where similar projects are being conducted.


The project was proposed by Victoria University (VU). In consultation with the OLT, Edith

Cowan University (ECU) was added as a project partner.

The project intent as reported

The project was retitled ‘Professional development program to embed inclusive and explicit

teaching practices in higher education first year units’.

The aim of the project was specified as:

To investigate whether providing an ongoing, scaffolded professional learning

program to higher education educators who had little or no formal teacher

training and who were teaching large, first year foundation units led to more

engaged teaching. AT VU, the targeted first year foundation units were

originally to be taught by sessional staff only, but staffing changes meant that

a mix of sessional and permanent staff taught the units. At ECU, selected first

year foundation units were taught largely by sessional staff. (Report, p.5)

The evaluation process

The evaluation involved:

1. Review of pertinent OLT grant guidelines

Here the OLT 2013 Innovation and Development Grants, Program information and

application instructions’ Version 1.0, was utilised.

2. Review any documentation on the original grant proposal

The documents utilised here were the final version of the project proposal and the

Funding Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia as represented by the

Department of Industry, Science, and Tertiary Education, and Victoria University

regarding funding for Professional development program to embed inclusive and

explicit teaching practices in higher education first year units (ID12-2561)

3. Review of the grant final report and any interim reports or records

The documents utilised here were the Professional development program to embed

inclusive and explicit teaching practices in higher education first year units, Final

report, February 2016 The Victoria Institute, Victoria University (lead institution) and

Edith Cowan University (partner institution) together with Minutes of the Reference

Group Meeting, 28th January 2014 and 19th June 2014

4. Face-to-face or phone interviews and correspondence with the Project Leaders and

team members.

Here interviews were conducted with at Victoria University: Professor Roger Slee,

Director of the Victoria Institute for Education, Diversity and Lifelong Learning,

(initially Project Sponsor and for a time Project Leader); and the final Project Leader

Ms Claire Brown, Associate Director, the Victoria Institute, Victoria University

(initially Project Director at VU).

A written response to evaluation questions was received from Associate Professor


Mark McMahon, Associate Dean Teaching and Learning, School of Arts and

Humanities, Project Director, Ethic Cowan University.

Telephone conversations and emails were used to clarify some points.

In citing of data below contribution of Ms Claire Brown are identified as VU Project

Leader; contributions of Associate Professor Mark McMahon are identified as ECU

Project Leader.

5. Review of any statistical or evaluative data collected in conjunction with project

activities.

Here statistical data available was limited to data contained in the Project Report

6. Review of any project artefacts and deliverables.

A sample of video recordings of project participants teaching was reviewed.

PowerPoint slides supporting professional development workshops based on AVID

were reviewed. A project web site will be available. It was under development at the

time of the evaluation.

Format of the evaluation and rationale

This evaluation was commissioned at the conclusion of the project and therefore is

summative in nature.

The project evaluation has three broad components:

1. The first is an evaluation against objectives. Here both the broad objectives of the

funding body for the category of grant are considered along with stated objectives of

the project. These reference points are employed as they reflect the purposes of the

funding body in commissioning the project and the expectations of the project

proponents in engaging in the project.

2. Evaluation against stated objectives alone would be inadequate. Project proposals

are framed in expectation of conditions, possibilities and desirable outcomes. In the

event projects take place in a dynamic environment, which may include changes of

personnel involved. As a project advances fresh understandings of possibilities,

obstacles and preferable courses of action and outcomes can evolve. For this reason

the second broad criterion is to evaluate against available information on the

intentions of key project personnel as the project progressed and against any

formally agreed modifications to the project proposal.

3. There is the possibility that, for better or worse, the project produced some

outcomes undefined in the original agreement and unexpected in modifications

made along the way. For this reason the third criterion involves identification of

unexpected outcomes.

Note: Project expenditure and budgetary performance are not dealt with in this evaluation.

Financial acquittal will be handled separately.

The evaluation report addresses these components in the following sequence:

1. Specification of the original objectives and expectations


2. Changing understandings of the project in action

3. Reported activities and outcomes, including dissemination

4. Reflections against intentions and expectations

5. Unintended outcomes

Expressed intentions and expectations

The broad OLT objective for projects in the grant category

In broad terms the Funding Agreement states that the funding body, the Department of

Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education in conducting a program –

the Grants Scheme – is ‘responsible for providing grants to the higher education sector to

advance learning and teaching in higher education’. ‘Objectives include the dissemination of

good individual and institutional practice in learning and teaching in Australian higher

education.’ Under the agreement Victoria University is ‘committed to helping achieve the

program through its conduct of the project. (Agreement p.1)

The Innovation and Development Grants program has the following objectives:

1. Promote and support strategic change in higher education institutions for the

enhancement of learning and teaching, and the benefit of the student

experience.

2. Raise the profile and encourage recognition of the fundamental importance of

teaching in higher education institutions and in the general community.

3. Develop effective mechanisms for the identification, development, dissemination

and embedding of good individual and institutional practice in learning and

teaching in Australian higher education.

4. Develop and support reciprocal national and international arrangements for the

purpose of sharing and benchmarking learning and teaching processes.

5. Develop and enhance a deep understanding and knowledge of the learning

process appropriate to the disciplines being taught.

The project was funded in the research and development category of the Innovation and

Development Grants program. Research and development focussed on issues of emerging

and continuing importance not featured in the other priorities but considered by the

Standing Committee of the OLT to be of national significance or addressing a major concern

in a discipline area.

The evaluation findings in respect of the OLT objective for Innovation and Development

Grants projects follow in the ‘Evaluation against expectations section below’.

The specified project objectives, including the intended deliverables

The project objectives were not specified per se but can be inferred from the project

proposal.


The project proposal focused on sessional staff and the role of the subject coordinator in the

professional development of all staff, but especially sessional staff brought into teaching

teams, often for limited periods. The point of difference in this proposal with previous

related ALTC projects was its ‘emphasis on the concept of student transition and the

importance of this in supporting students to engage with the learning process, and

ultimately, continue with their studies’. (Proposal, p.2)

It was proposed to investigate the value of the use of the professional development AVID

for Higher Education (AHE) program in Australia with academics engaged in teaching first

year units, especially sessional academics. The proposal stated ‘Three of VU’s six Faculties

have committed to exploring implementation of the AVID for Higher Education model,

which includes a professional learning system of ongoing pedagogical training and support

for students, teaching and support staff, and administrators’. (Proposal p.3).

The outcome specified was an increase in sessional staff’s teaching capability in a systematic

approach to implement inclusive, explicit strategies in first year units at VU where over 20%

of students (up to 40% in some of our target HES units) come from LSES backgrounds. This

should contribute to improved student engagement and success, in turn leading to

increased retention and completion rates in keeping with the Commonwealth’s aim of 40%

of all 25-34 year olds having a Bachelor level degree by 2025, and 20% of all domestic

undergraduate enrolments coming from LSES backgrounds by 2020. (Proposal, p.4)

It was expected, given the early experiences from other tertiary institutions implementing

AVID in the USA, that students directly involved in this AVID project would have greater

retention and success rates, and that this would lead to some level of cultural change to

embed good institutional and individual practice in HE learning and teaching within the

courses where these first year units were housed. The proposal involved testing this

assumption. (Proposal, p.5)

Implicit objective are summarized here as:

1. Improving the quality of the teaching experience for sessional tutoring staff

2. Improving student engagement with the learning process

3. Investigation of the value of the use of AVID for Higher Education program in

Australia

4. Development of a collaborative, inter-departmental, multi-disciplinary model

improving teaching and learning experience for sessional teaching staff and students

In addition the specified purposes of the project were to:

1. Trial a holistic, systematic approach to improve the quality of the teaching

experience for sessional tutoring staff and the quality of the learning experience for

students.

2. Develop a collaborative, inter-departmental, multi-disciplinary model that has an

evidence-based, data-driven approach to informing and implementing


improvements in teaching and learning experience for sessional teaching staff and

students.

Components of the project were to be based on the model for AVID implementation being

developed under the leadership of The Victoria Institute for Education, Diversity and

Lifelong Learning with partners from the Victoria University Faculty of Health, Engineering

and Science, Faculty of Arts, Education and Human Development, and staff from the School

of Language and Learning in the Student Learning Unit.

The project in action: Expectations of the Project Leaders

The project provided a short program of professional development on learning and teaching

to sessional and other untrained teaching staff with responsibility for teaching first year

subjects. The professional development program was based on the AVID for higher

education program used in USA, which was reported to be working well there. The program

was provided according to a VU Project Leader

In the hope of improving student satisfaction with teaching at VU – which was

rated as among the worst in Australia in the Good Universities Guide.

The proposal was to trial it in Australia. That is to take action that would hopefully

improve student engagement in first year at VU whilst investigating the

effectiveness of the intervention.

That remained the key issue.

ECU was added as a partner and the units of study selected for involvement were changed

and the way the participants interacted with each other differed between sites. At ECU

participation was mandatory for the unit selected and the group met weekly, building a

learning community, whilst at VU it was done on a voluntary basis but the key issue

remained the same.

At ECU the project was aimed primarily at teaching and sessional staff in the Schools of

Education and Communications and Arts.

The ECU leader’s understanding was:

That the key focus in enhancing student engagement in teaching to address the

issues of academic staff, particularly sessionals, who may lack formal education

qualifications and typically don’t receive much teaching professional development.

Also it addresses the issue of non-traditional students who don’t have a strong

academic background as many of the strategies address fundamental academic

skills. This focus was maintained throughout the project.

I wasn’t involved in the initial planning of the project. I was pleasantly surprised

about the validity of the strategies being implemented and the ability of [VU

Project Leaders] to meet the needs of our sessional staff for training.


The building and operation of the team project was affected by changes in personnel at the

partner institutions from the initial proponents of the project. Nevertheless key elements of

the project were delivered and a pertinent investigation was conducted.

Reported activities and outcomes

Nature of the intervention

An existing professional learning and teaching framework from the USA, based on the

Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID) college/university readiness program,

titled AVID for Higher Education (AHE) was selected to test its viability for the Australian

higher education context (Report, p.6). While the professional learning program was based

on the AVID for Higher Education program the VU Project Leader stated:

We did not go in with a hard and fast plan of what the professional development

modules would look like. We had always planned to keep an element of

customization and adapt the strategies for those who participated in the trial.

‘The foundation of the AVID’s Postsecondary curriculum is WICOR: Writing, Inquiry,

Collaboration, Organization, and Reading.’ AVID postsecondary strategies for success, AVID

Press, San Diego, 2011, p.6. The process involves instructors working with students to

develop foundational skills that will enhance the development of higher level skills. It

involves ‘scaffolding’ starting with basic skill development in students and building toward

greater complexity. Strategies are informed by taxonomies of levels of learning and are

consistent with constructivist understandings of learning. See for example the use of KWL –

Know, Want/need to know, Learned. (AVID postsecondary strategies for success, p.80). The

PowerPoint slides supporting the professional learning activities indicate the application of

principles and practices of the AVID program.

Reflecting on the AVID base for the professional learning program the ECU Project Leader

stated:

AVID was what formed the basis of the program. It defined the teaching strategies

that we used and it was workshopped and delivered as a package, though we

didn’t necessarily communicate that this was AVID to students.

Sessional and permanent staff from Victoria University (VU) in Victoria and Edith Cowan

University (ECU) in Western Australia were given the option of attending between one and

up to six professional learning sessions. The sessions were offered over two years to help

the educators build a repertoire of inclusive, explicit teaching strategies. VU offered 14-15

days of professional learning sessions and ECU 17-18 days of professional learning sessions

(Report, p.14). Sessional teaching staff were paid for the hours they attended the

professional learning sessions at a rate equivalent to marking or other activities. They were

also provided with ongoing professional learning support from coordinators through the

semester to build a collaborative professional learning community across discipline areas

within their own university and with colleagues from the other university.


In the AVID for Higher Education program undertaken by participating staff scaffolding was

demonstrated, participants’ lessons were observed and video recorded. Delivery of the AVID

for Higher Education professional learning sessions used ‘an immersion approach where the

teaching strategies were modelled and practiced by the participants in every professional

learning session’ (Report, p.13). ‘Time in each professional learning session was provided to

review teaching materials to determine how the AVID strategies could be embedded in the

target units’ (Report, p.14). Participants were provided with feedback.

Investigative elements

The research component of the project investigated the issue of professional learning from

both sessional and permanent teaching staff perspectives. Specifically the project

investigated whether the Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID) professional

learning framework could be adapted for an Australian context to stimulate greater

engagement in higher education learning and teaching that leads to improvements in the

quality of both (Report, p.10). The focus was on analysing the educators’ experiences in

terms of their teaching capabilities and their identities as educators (Report p.7).

The research questions were framed as:

1. Does providing ongoing professional learning using the AVID for Higher Education

(AHE) explicit teaching framework stimulate more engaged teaching?

2. Is there a return on investment for a university from providing regular/continuous,

supported professional learning to sessional and permanent teaching staff?


video exemplars that could be further developed to build professional learning

activities around them? (Report, p.11)

The report provides a summary of the findings from both case study sites, VU and ECU. The

data has been used to formulate two short vignettes to demonstrate the implementation of

the AHE professional learning model and its impact as experienced by the participants. (See

Appendices B and C). The data for these vignettes were derived from semi-structured

interviews with educators, workshop attendance data, survey data, and video recorded

teaching observations. ECU data contains students’ evaluation survey data from the

coordinator of the unit. These data were collected over a three-year period prior to and post

AVID training. VU data contains the data on pass rates for one of the target units pre- and

post-AVID for Higher Education (Report, p.6). At VU units with high fail rates were selected

and offered a professional learning program. These came from the Faculty of Health and

Bio-med, which had high fail rates. Anyone was allowed to attend. Participation was on a

voluntary basis. (Report, p.6)

The VU Project Leader reflected that:

Course co-ordinators tracked student results but in nursing and biomed they

undertook a major re write of their courses so there were other variables. We


planned to use comparative data overtime rather than to use a control group

which would involve withholding the intervention from some students. In the

Faculty of Arts, a first year foundation unit was taught on two campuses and AVID

training was provided to the group at the campus where students entered with

lower ATARs and typically had lower achievement rates. Over the course of this

project, we did see significant improvement in the students’ results on the campus

where the AVID professional learning program was provided.

The research was focused on the participating teachers rather than on students.

We got participants to do a questionnaire after each professional learning session.

We asked them how they felt as educators? Did they know what to do? What had

changed? We observed they had difficulty in determining what highly effective

teaching was.

At ECU a lot of the work around investigation and evaluation of the AVID program has

happened at secondary schools engaged in the AVID primary and secondary programs.

Investigation of the university program was more limited but vignettes were video recorded

and case studies developed.

Reported findings and outcomes

Findings relating to teaching factors and to institutional factors are presented (Report, p.7).

These relate to both the participants experience of the professional development

intervention and to effectiveness, including cost/benefit observations, of the intervention.

1. Does providing ongoing professional learning using the AVID for Higher Education

(AHE) explicit teaching framework stimulate more engaged teaching?

The Project Report states ‘the AHE collaborative, inquiry-based, practical model of

professional learning was positively received by participants and customisable for Australia’.

(Report, p.7)

Analysis of the data showed that all interviewees valued the professional learning

sessions.

Both sessional and permanent teaching staff from VU and ECU reported that their

teaching capabilities and sense of teacher identity were enhanced by undertaking

the AHE professional learning program. Most participants believed that the

positive impact on their teaching was due to particular features of this type of

professional learning (Report, p.17).

There is evidence that the teaching of participants improved in terms of adoption of

strategies that could be expected to improve student engagement. The reported impact on

participants’ teaching capabilities depended on the participants’ levels of higher education

teaching experience.

Teachers who had more than five years higher education experience reported that

the workshops provided an effective scaffold that enabled them to:


• Learn new teaching strategies that they could apply immediately to their

classes.

• Build on their existing knowledge of effective higher education teaching

practice.

• Reinforce good practices already being used.

• Adapt and modify higher education teaching strategies to suit their

discipline area.

Educators who had no teaching training and less than five years of higher

education teaching experience tended to be sessional or new recruits to their

university. They reported that the AHE professional learning sessions helped them

to build an initial understanding of the importance of developing foundation skills

and theories of learning and teaching that they didn’t previously have, and which

helped structure their teaching. (Report, p.18)

The team concluded that a six session teaching preparation program was beneficial but was

not sufficient to produce substantial change in participants’ approach to teaching and

adoption of engaging strategies. This is referenced in the final project report (p.18), which

refers to understandings that ‘sustained, ongoing teaching development activities are far

more effective in transforming how academics teach than one-off workshops or short

programs’.

2. Was there a return on investment for a university from providing regular /

continuous, supported professional learning?

One question addressed was ‘is there a return on investment for a university from providing

regular/continuous, supported professional learning to sessional and permanent teaching

staff?’

The Project Report states:

Paying sessional staff to attend professional learning appears to provide a return

on investment in terms of improving the quality and engagement in teaching over

time, but payment alone is not sufficient to ensure institutional factors allow all

staff to attend and invest in professional learning opportunities. The tenuous

nature of sessional employment disempowers educators to commit to or regularly

attend. (Report, p.7)

An investigation of return on investment was attempted at VU but there were problems in

accessing data critical to the analysis. A methodology – an algorithm – for determining

return on investment was devised by Dr Max Winchester and could be applied in future. The

Project Leader at VU stated:

There needs to be a separate study on return on investment that considers

longitudinal data and evidence to confirm attribution across multiple variables

appropriately. I would expect a big return on investment.

The ECU Project Leader stated:


There would undoubtedly be a return on investment in terms of retention, though

this is difficult to measure because it is subject to multiple variables beyond

engaged teaching. The problem for sessional staff attending workshops is that our

EB requires us to pay them if they’re required to attend. [This could not be

sustained beyond the project.]


video exemplars that could be further developed to build professional learning

activities around them?

It was proposed that a prototype database of effective higher education teaching video

exemplars that could be further developed to and professional learning activities structured

around them.

The report states:

A small number of teacher observations that were captured on video. The videos

provided evidence about the potential value in building a prototype database of

effective higher education teaching video exemplars that could be further

developed to create professional learning activities. (Report, p.12)

The ECU Project Leader stated:

This [providing video exemplars] is probably the strongest value that I can see in

the project overall because I can’t see how the impact itself can be sustained

without the funding. As mentioned previously, the development of explicit

strategies outside of AVID would be even better – maybe another project!

Dissemination

The following publications and papers produced during the life of the project relate to the

project.

Brown, C.,Tangalakis, K. and Hughes, K., (2013). Engaged Teaching for Engaged Students:

Explicit, Inclusive AVID. 16th International First Year Higher Education Conference.

Wellington, New Zealand.

Hughes, K. and Brown, C. (2014). Strengthening the Intersections Between Secondary and

Tertiary Education in Australia: Building Cultural Capital, Journal of University Teaching &

Learning Practice, 11(2). Available at: http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol11/iss2/6

Tangalakis, K., Hughes, K., Brown, C. & Dickson, K. (2014). Explicit Teaching Strategies for

Science Foundation Subjects. International Journal of Innovation in Science and

Mathematics Education, 22(3), 42-51. http://www.ijisme.org/

Brown, C. (2015). What’s the best way to take notes on your tablet or laptop? The

Conversation. http://theconversation.com/whats-the-best-most-effective-way-to-take-

notes-41961. 14th July 2015. (Impact: >60,000 hits, tweets and reprints)


Brown, C. (2015). What’s the best, most effective way to take notes? The Conversation.

http://theconversation.com/whats-the-best-most-effective-way-to-take-notes-41961. 22nd

May 2015. (Impact: >200,000 hits, tweets and reprints)

Evaluation against expectations

Evaluation against broad OLT objectives for Innovation and Development Grants

1. Promote and support enhancement of learning and teaching, and the student

experience

The proposal appeared to have the potential to promote strategic change that will

enhance learning and teaching, and the student experience. The PowerPoint slides,

which reflect the structure of the professional development workshops, are based on

sound teaching principles and are designed to have participants engage in active,

reflective learning. The professional learning process was designed to model teaching

strategies it was hoped participants would embed in their own practice.

The ECU Project Leader reflected:

I think that there is an implicit learning theory which is based on metacognition

and self-regulated learning.

Asked whether the project activities promoted and supported enhancement of learning and

teaching, and the student experience the Project Leader at ECU stated

I’d say yes, it definitely promotes strategic change, though the nature of the

project as it ran at ECU was quite grass roots, working with individual academics.

The fact that we ran several workshops over a long period of time meant that

there was an opportunity for this to be embedded in practice.

Feedback from the project participants was very positive and many have told me

that they are now using explicit teaching strategies in their classrooms.

The Project Leader at VU claimed that participants, who were without teacher training,

demonstrated improved teaching techniques following the intensive professional

development program. Staff engaged in the program reported improvement in their

techniques to engage students. In the event improvements were apparent but they were

more modest than hoped.

There is some evidence, referred to in ‘Findings and outcomes’ below, that student

engagement improved following the introduction of the program. However the situation

was dynamic, there were many variables so it is not possible to demonstrate a causal

connection.

2. Encourage recognition of the fundamental importance of teaching in higher education


The professional learning program did have participants who were sessional staff and other

staff who were not teacher qualified taking action to improve their approaches to teaching

and word of the intervention has spread.

The AVID for higher education program is popular and is still being used in a number of

instances in the partner institutions and beyond. The VU Project Leader has been invited to

provide professional learning workshops based on the AVID for higher education program at

two Melbourne institutions.

3. Develop good individual and institutional practice in learning and teaching

The project did contribute to developing effective mechanisms for the identification,

development, dissemination and embedding of good individual and institutional practice in

learning and teaching.

The ECU Project Leader reported

We did share our experiences through things like papers at ECUlture (ECU’s main

teaching and learning conference) and with schools and learning consultants who

were involved.

Two journal articles related to the project have been published and other forms of

dissemination employed. See ‘Dissemination’ above. The project web site is in final stages of

development and is scheduled to be online by the end of March 2016.

4. Develop and support sharing and benchmarking learning and teaching processes

There has been sharing of the experiences of the project through the avenues listed under

‘Dissemination’ above. The Project Leader at VU states that benchmarking has not been

attempted at the national level as it would involve a longitudinal process going beyond the

life of the project.

While the international benchmarking proposed did not occur AVID USA has taken and

interest in the project and requested the report. As a consequence of involvement in the

project the Project Leader at VU has been invited to contribute to professional development

modules with Professor Eric Mazur from Harvard University. See ‘Evaluation of unintended

outcomes’ below.

5. Enhance a deep understanding and knowledge of the learning process

The project was designed to develop and enhance a deep understanding and knowledge of

the learning process in the participating staff. The ECU leader reported ‘This was one of the

key strengths. The explicit teaching strategies are inherently metacognitive in nature and

create opportunities to embrace multiple perspectives and negotiate understanding. I think

it created a great focus on self-regulated learning that the participants bought into.

The program was tailored to particular disciplines but there were also opportunities for

cross-discipline networking that were appreciated by participants.


In the units of study to which the intervention applied student retention improved.

Evaluation against objectives indicated in the project proposal

Improving the quality of the teaching experience for sessional tutoring staff?

The intent was that sessional staff were also to be provided with ongoing professional

learning support from coordinators through the semester to build a collaborative

professional learning community across discipline areas within their own university and with

colleagues from the other university.

Intensive, ongoing professional learning in AVID’s explicit teaching strategies for sessional

staff who teach as tutors in large first year units but who have little or no teacher training

was successfully provided.

In the event the VU Project Leader reported:

While it was intended that sessional staff would be provided with ongoing

professional learning support from coordinators this happened in some cases but

not all due to workload issues and redundancy measures. In some cases sessional

staff were supported in the second year of the project by First year champions.

It worked in bio-med where First year champions trained in AVID and then worked

with first year tutors.

The proposal indicated an intent to build a collaborative professional learning community

across discipline areas within their own university and with colleagues from the other

university. Reflecting on this intention the VU Project Leader stated:

The teaching teams came together during the workshops and discussions from

different contexts and discipline areas were had, but ultimately the professional

learning communities relocated back to within disciplines rather than between

them.

At ECU the Project Leader reported:

It did happen. By having multiple workshops, we really did engage with staff over a

period of time and I think that for those who were involved there was real

salience.

A qualification to the success of the initial intervention was also mentioned:

The big problem is sustainability. Sessionals are a highly mobile staff so I don’t see

the impetus being maintained over the long term unless we can programmatise it

over a longer period.

The ECU Project Leader stated when asked whether explicit learning and teaching

pedagogies were embedded in first year units employing a significant number of sessional

staff to improve the quality of teaching and learning and therefore improve retention:


This was a real strength. The strategies became embedded in many of our first year

units such as the example above as well as our Study Skills unit. It’s hard to pin

retention causality, though, as there are so many other compounding factors.

Improving student engagement with the learning process

The project title refers to embedding inclusive teaching practices. Participants claimed to be

taking a student-centered approach and did for example employ more questioning of

students than previously. In some cases, however, the participants’ estimation of the extent

of improvement exceeded the improvement observed by the project team members. The

project team video-recorded teaching sessions conducted by participants in the hope of

having video exemplars that could be disseminated through the project web site. The VU

Project Leader reported that participants claimed that the program had changed their

approach to teaching and that they were now interacting with students.

When I looked at the video that was not exactly what I was seeing. There was

certainly improvement but not to the extent that we would now call them highly

effective teachers, and I’m sure they wouldn’t claim to be, either. They were now

asking questions but the person answering the questions was often the one up the

front. What people say/think they do and what they really do is not always the

same thing.

Improvement was evident but not to the point of being exemplary. Nevertheless examples

of effective application of teaching strategies addressed can be found in the video-

recordings and will provide a valuable resource to support professional development of

higher education academics who currently lack training in teaching.

In relation to this the VU Project Leader claimed:

The AVID program gave teachers some explicit strategies for the planning of their

tutorials and lectures. So yes the AVID program could be adapted for an Australian

context. But teaching is a craft and an art that cannot be acquired quickly in six

workshop sessions even with related application.

At VU Bio-med academics reviewed their course delivery following the AVID professional

learning workshops. The Project Leader reported still getting requests from Bio-med

academics ‘so they do value it’.

The ECU leader reported of student engagement with the learning process that:

This was a major focus and one of the key reported successes. Students

appreciated the level of structure that the teaching strategies provided and they

kept the classroom moving.

Nevertheless there were instances of academics reflecting on curriculum and planned

learning and teaching activities:

[An ECU staff member] completely revised his unit outline. Reduced the number of

required readings from a large number per week and refocused on the essentials.


The Report provides case studies on the effects of the AVID-based intervention on student

engagement. The information provided is selective and no other data is provided in the

Report. Nevertheless the information that is made available does provide prima facie

evidence of substantial improvement in student engagement. Concurrent with the AVID-

based intervention there were other changes in the teaching context that may have had

some effect on outcomes.

Appendix B of the Project Report provides a case study relating to the application of AHE

strategies in one of the foundation units in the College of Arts at VU. In this instance ‘the

pass rates for this unit have risen significantly from 53% (N=58) in 2012 to 81.01% (N=179)

in 2013 after AHE strategies were embedded’.

An observation shared by all tutors in the unit was that the improvement in the

pass rates is indicative of more engaged students who are responding well to their

new interactive approach to learning and teaching. (Report, p.29)

Appendix C of the Project Report provides a case study relating to the implementation of

AVID in a first year core unit. In this case student satisfaction with the unit improved from

54% in 2012 (pre-AVID) to 83% in 2013. Responses to the survey item ‘This unit extended

my learning’ improved from 71% to 88% and responses to the item ‘This unit challenged my

thinking’ improved from 73% to 93%.

The ECU Project Leader reported that improving student engagement with the learning

process:

[Was] a major focus and one of the key reported successes. Students appreciated

the level of structure that the teaching strategies provided and they kept the

classroom moving.

The vast majority of participants valued it and reported that it increased

engagement in the classroom

Further evidence of improved student engagement and/or retention at ECU was provided

by the Project Leader who reported improvement:

Particularly in the unit [selected]. As I was the coordinator of that unit previously

and I had the current coordinator involved I was able to ensure that we embedded

this in lesson planning. In the first semester we ran it, student satisfaction doubled

in our teaching evaluations.

Investigation of the value of the use of AVID for Higher Education program in Australia

The AVID for Higher Education program was successfully adapted for Australian educators

and delivered at two sites over a two-year trial period.

All of the educators who participated in the professional learning program

reported that the training was very useful and that they had incorporated explicit

teaching strategies in to their teaching. They reported that their teaching was now


more interactive and students appeared to be more engaged in their learning as a

result (Report, p.16)

The intent was to target staff in the units of study specified below:

Name of University Faculty and Unit Enrolments Number of sessional/other tutors

VU Health, Engineering & Science

Frameworks for Nursing/Working with Families

Foundations in Biomedical Sciences A and B

565

180

10

5

VU Arts, Education and Human Development

Knowing and Knowledge A

360

6

ECU Faculty of Education and the Arts

CCA1103 Creativity: Theory, Practice & History

200

5

Student Learning Unit staff for AVID training 4

In the event a series of professional learning sessions were conducted, each involving 1 to 3

training days. At VU the full program provided the opportunity for participation in six

sessions. The total workshop days offered amounted to 14 -15. Total of the of individual

session attendances (as distinct from total number of participants) was 212 (Report, p.14,

Table 2). At ECU workshop days offered were 17-18. Total of the of individual workshop

attendances (as distinct from total number of participants) was 118 (Report, p.14, Table 1).

At VU participation, for the units selected, participation was voluntary. Staffing

reorganization led to the number of sessional staff employed being reduced so the

proportion of sessional staff to contract staff participating in the program was less than

anticipated.

Involvement of staff whether sessional or contracted in the full professional learning

program was more limited than hoped. The VU Project Leader reported:

Many sessional staff did not attend the full six sessions as they had other

commitments or priorities. Some contracted staff did not attend as research rather

than teaching was seen as the key to career advancement.

The ECU Project Leader reported:

We paid sessionals to attend the workshops. The plan was to have the same cohort

go through. This did work to a large extent with some key teachers, though

because of the inherent mobility and difficulty in accessing sessionals as they often

have other jobs, there were a few that dropped in an out during the period.

The ECU leader reported that ‘Sessional staff were particularly grateful because it allowed

us to pay them to attend Professional Development’.

Reflecting on the AVID base for the professional learning program the ECU Project Leader

stated:


Ultimately, to my mind, AVID was a good basis but problematic because of IP

issues – we would be better in the long run developing our own explicit teaching

strategies so not having to be tied to their system and restrictions.

Development of a collaborative, inter-departmental, multi-disciplinary model improving

teaching and learning experience for sessional teaching staff and students

With regard to development of a collaborative, inter-departmental, multi-disciplinary model

improving teaching and learning experience for sessional teaching staff and students at ECU

the Project Leader reported:

That’s not going to happen unless you have multiple departments involved. This

was very faculty based and didn’t involve our Centre for Learning and

Development so the advantages were pretty much tied to two schools.

Evaluation of unintended outcomes

Engagement in the project led to a discussion between the VU Project Leader, Ms Claire

Brown and Professor Eric Mazur, Prof Physics and Applied Physics at Harvard University and

Member of the Faculty of Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Professor

Mazur has expressed interest in working with Claire Brown to design professional learning

modules for an e-learning platform he is developing.

There were no other unintended outcomes of the project but a number of the findings

differed from expectations.

An unexpected point of contention in the higher education application of AVID was

participant questioning of the US origin of the material and suggestions Australia should

develop their own materials rather than negotiating around the American intellectual

property issues. When this issue has surfaced in the Australian schools’ implementation of

the AVID program, the availability and ease of access to more than 36 years high quality

learning and teaching materials and resources already available is offered as a counter

argument. .

Another issue raised was how the AVID program related to other professional development

in teaching and learning offered by the universities involved, including the award programs

relating to learning and teaching in higher education.

Participants stated that they wanted discipline-specific professional development but in the

event valued interaction across disciplines.

The ECU Project Leader stated that he:

Found that by attending workshops with sessional staff I was able to get a better

insight into some of their experiences, particularly in terms of the lack of

information they receive from their unit coordinators. They’re typically not very

aware of assessment policies, addressing English Language proficiency etc. It gave

me an opportunity to discuss these things with them.


Conclusion

The project title indicates the intent of the project was to embed inclusive and explicit

teaching practices in higher education first year units. The focus was on teachers of first

year units who lacked teacher training, including teachers employed on a sessional basis.

The means to achieving the broad intent was intended to be engagement of higher

education first year teachers without teacher training in a professional learning program

based on the US professional learning and student support system AVID (Advancement via

Individual Determination) for Higher Education. The project included investigation of the

effectiveness of the implemented professional learning program in improving student

engagement in first year units.

The project has delivered in provision over two years of a professional learning program

informed by the AVID for Higher Education program. Both sessional and contracted

academics teaching first year units undertook the program at the participating institutions,

Victoria University and Edith Cowan University. Evidence is provided of both improvement

in the teaching practices of the participants and in the retention and satisfaction of students

in n the units involved in the study.

The investigative element of the project indicated that:

Providing professional learning informed by the AVID for Higher Education (AHE)

explicit teaching framework stimulates more engaged teaching. The extent to which

this is so difficult to determine but it appears that this six session program did result

in improvement in the teaching practices of participants but that the extent of

improvement was modest. This aligns with findings in the final report (pp.7 &18).

There is the potential to maintain this level of improvement but it is too early to

claim inclusive and explicit teaching practices have been embedded.

There may be value in building a prototype database of effective higher education

teaching video exemplars that could be further developed to build professional

learning activities around them. At the time of this evaluation the website of video

exemplars is in the final stages of construction so the value is yet to be determined.

There is evidence that the project has made a contribution to each of the broad objectives

of the OLT Innovation and Development Grant Scheme and has, at least to an extent, met

the each of the specified and the implicit objectives of the project.

The evaluator

The evaluation was undertaken by Peter Ling, B.Comm., M.Ed., Ph.D., Adjunct Associate

Professor, Learning Transformations Unit, Swinburne University of technology.

Peter Ling has acted as evaluator for several national projects including: Developing multi-

level leadership in the use of student feedback to enhance student learning and teaching

practice, Carrick Leadership Grant Project, 2007, RMIT University; Peer Review of Teaching


in Higher Education, The Australian Learning and Teaching Council project, 2009, Centre for

the Study of Higher education, The University of Melbourne; and Evaluation of Learning

Spaces, Australian Learning and Teaching Council project, 2010, Swinburne University of

Technology, The University of Queensland, and Victoria University.

Peter Ling has been principal researcher in several national projects including: The

development of academics and higher education futures, Australian Learning and Teaching

Council, 2009-2012; The effectiveness of models of flexible provision of Higher Education in

Australia, Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs, 2001. Peter was co-

researcher for Multiple modes of delivery, A Higher Education Innovation Program project of

the Australian Universities Teaching Committee, 2004. Peter was engaged as Project Officer

for Learning Without Borders, Enhancing Leadership in Transnational and International

Education, Australian Office for Learning and Teaching, 2010-2013.

For the purposes of the evaluation Peter Ling was engaged as a consultant by Victoria

University.

Dr Peter Ling

913/58 Jeffcott St

West Melbourne

Vic., 3003

P: +61(0) 418 313 755

[email protected]

ABN: Peter Newson Ling 26 224 408 956

mailto:[email protected]

professional development program to embed inclusive and

Documents