Professional development: comments archive

Thanks for these comments. I found them interesting, but a bit off the track of what I think SU means by "good teaching". In fact, I found the definition implicit in the list of points to be addressed in this year's Excellence in Teaching Award application very good indeed, including evidence of educational scholarship, change brought about by feedback, etc. Below is an outline of the ``definitions offered in the Excellence in Teaching Award''

Conclusions

• The majority of staff in our universities do not believe that good teaching is valued. The majority of universities claim to have in place policies and procedures which do recognise and reward good teaching.
• Describing teaching achievements and assessing them fairly and accurately requires more attention than is currently given.
• Promotion and appointment must be supported by rewards for those for whom formal recognition is not an option.
• Rewards in themselves are not enough. Supportive Environments must be developed.
• Effective leadership and management for good teaching is essential.
• Credible and effective methods will reflect and build on existing academic values and not put teaching and research into destructive competition.

• Listening to students and learning from them.
• Affirming the strength and potential of students.
• Being knowledgeable about students and about what helps them to learn particular topics and concepts.
• Having appropriately high expectations of students.
• Making it clear what these expectations are.
• Using a range of carefully chosen and appropriate teaching and assessment strategies.
• Actively involving students in learning through methods such as case studies, discussion, group projects and problem-solving.
• Using assessment to help students to learn, to become more responsible for their own learning and to encourage them to integrate theory and practice.
• Providing ample feedback on student learning so that students know where they have gone wrong.
• Skilfully varying the degree of control over, and the independence given to students, depending on their level of experience, attainment and preparedness.
• Continually improving professional practice through reflection, discussion and innovation.
• Actively searching for new ways to help students to learn and seeking opportunities to share their ideas with other teachers.
• Working, collaboratively, as a team member with subject and course colleagues to plan and to develop the total experience of the student.

Also, there is a new publication, Recognising and rewarding good teaching in Australian higher education by Paul Ramsden, Elaine Martin, Don Margetson and Sally Clarke It is the result of a project commissioned by the Committee for the Advancement of University Teaching, published by the Australian Government Publishing Service.

It does a VERY good job of the definition.
The purpose of the project was to produce recommended processes and procedures which would enable good teaching to be recognised and rewarded.

Subject: What is excellence in teaching?
From: ndfreit@centre.ait.ac.nz (Nancy De Freitas)
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996

I think that excellence in teaching has something to do with an individual, the teacher, having clear and strongly held opinions about issues surrounding her subject, in addition to the knowledge of subject that goes without saying.

Even when these opinions are different from those held by the student, the clarity and passion of the teacher gives the student a model to emulate whether or not they ever agree.

Nancy de Freitas, School of Art and Design, Auckland Institute of Technology

Subject: What is excellence in teaching?
From: rslaneyk@alpha2.curtin.edu.au (Kisane Slaney)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996

Thought I would throw in another aspect to the debate...

An excellent teacher is one who is prepared to 'walk an extra mile' with the student. That is to say, the teacher acknowledges that the student lives within a world/world-view and that their (academic) learning is one small part of that world. An excellent teacher will make the teaching-learning process relevant to the student's world.

Subject: Recognising excellence in teaching
From: m.murray@qut.edu.au (Martin Murray)
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996

An excellent teacher is one who recognises the important point that if there is no learning, then there is no teaching. There is no other point to teaching. Therefore, excellent teachers are ones who focus their energies, not on being a good performer or one who achieves high student ratings (though these should not be ignored), but on maximising student learning. We do that by getting students off their tails in the passive note taking lecture and putting them into as many useful, enjoyable, practical learning experiences as possible. The more we recognise that students learn nearly nothing in lectures, but learn most things in interactive sessions with instructors and peers, and spend our time constructing such sessions, the more "excellent" we are. And, in case there are those who say such is not possible with large classes, many are doing these things with classes of 500 students and more.

Subject: What is the appropriate length of courses designed for new teachers in Higher Education?
From: D.Gosling@uel.ac.uk (David Gosling)
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996

I would like to comment on the issue of the appropriate length of courses designed for new teachers in Higher Education.

The issue is particularly pertinent for us since some of our first cohort through the PGCE, which was validated in 1994, have noticed that our course is longer and more demanding than similar courses elsewhere in the UK. We require our staff to complete 4 core units (personal and Professional Development, Teaching Competences, Student Learning and Introduction to Assessment) in order to gain 25 credits. We normally expect this to take one year (part-time). We award a certificate of competence in teaching at this stage for those who do not wish to go any further. This part of the course has SEDA accrediation.

However for those who want the PGCE they need a further 10 credits, which is awarded for completeion of a 'Developmental Research project'. Other PGCE's are being awarded for one year part-time for less assessed work, I suspect.

How can comparability be achieved to ensure that staff in one institution do not feel that they are being asked for more than others?

A difficulty here is that for secondary and primary teachers the PGCE is awarded after one year full-time study, although given the amount of time now spent in schools, the difference is less marked than it used to be. Another issue here is 'level'. Our PGCE is at M-level and can contribute to a Masters. This is not the case with school-orientated PGCE's.

We have a much lighter programme aimed at postgraduate students and research assistants who teach. There is a tension between what we regard as acdemically sound and what we know our staff can actually manage given all the other pressures on them (eg to complete PhD's).
I would be interested to hear other views on this topic.

Subject: Do programmes emphasise generic teaching and learning issues at the expense of the unique nature of teaching within teachers' disciplines
From: kglewis@mail.utexas.edu (Karron G. Lewis)
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996

At the University of Texas at Austin, the primary source of instruction in teaching for graduate students appointed as teaching assistants or assistant instructors is the departmental 398T course, a 3-hour graduate course with various specific titles depending on the individual department. The purpose of the 398T course is to provide information and guidance in teaching to those graduate students who are responsible for conducting some portion of the instruction of undergraduate courses. The course is required by the University for any graduate student who will be the instructor of record and have sole responsibility for an undergraduate class. These are generally individuals with master's degrees and some previous experience as teaching assistants. Some departments extend that requirement to include all graduate students assigned as teaching assistants, prior to or coincident with their first semester in teaching.

Since the courses are taught by a member of the departmental faculty they include quite a bit of discipline-specific material. Assignment to teach 398T usually rotates through the senior faculty in a department; however, past studies of the course have shown that the most effective versions were those taught by individuals who had taught the course for at least three years. Since most college faculty have not had such a course themselves, they take a few years to get the course content under control. Faculty who have taught the course report learning more about teaching than they ever knew previously.

Format
The format of these courses varies from department to department. The most common format is a weekly 3-hour class meeting of approximately 10-12 students depending on the size of the department. Some of the smaller departments have combined forces to offer a single, combined section for their graduate students. Some larger departments have more than one section, each one associated with a particular undergraduate course (e.g., all first semester Chemistry laboratory assistants).

Content
Course content can take several directions. Some courses focus on preparing the graduate students to teach a particular course within the department. Others take a more general approach to preparing students to be teaching assistants regardless of their specific assignment. Still others have as an objective to prepare the students to take on faculty positions after graduation. The topics which are included in a given course will depend on which of these missions the department has chosen for it. The University is currently encouraging departments to look at the last of these three possibilities as the most desirable focus for 398T. However, it is up to the departments to tailor the content to the needs of the discipline.

Support from the Center for Teaching Effectiveness
In order to increase the probability that the faculty teaching 398T will have available to them sufficient information and materials to prepare a first class graduate course, the Center for Teaching Effectiveness is available to assist departments in the conduct of 398T. To do this, they offer the following services:

A Summer Seminar for 398T Instructors
As noted above, few faculty have had a course like 398T in their own background, and many are unsure as to what might be included. The Center sponsors a two-day seminar during the summer for prospective and experienced 398T instructors. During the seminar alternative course plans are reviewed, materials and methods are demonstrated, and experienced 398T instructors are available for consultation. In addition, these instructors get to know a group of other faculty who will be teaching the same course in their own department and to whom they can go for ideas and advice.

Course materials and the 398T Handbook
To help faculty find materials which are suitable for use in 398T, the Center has compiled a handbook of readings, handouts and ideas for use in teaching 398T. It includes primary sources, bibliographies, and modules on the most typical topics for 398T. The Center is also preparing a series of videotapes of experienced teachers and teaching assistants which can be used as trigger tapes for class discussion of various types of teaching.

Special request workshops
Since some topics in teaching are too technical or complicated for a 398T instructor to learn about in a short time, the Center personnel have offered a list of possible topics on which a 398T instructor can request a workshop. They include such things as learning theory, test design and grading, classroom communication, academic policies, working with students with disabilities and so on. (See list of currently available workshops given below.)

Videotaping and critiquing
One of the most popular and valuable services the Center offers 398T instructors is the possibility of having the class members videotaped and critiqued by CTE staff. Some instructors prefer to do their own taping or their own critiquing, but in general most 398T classes will ask for one or the other service.

For additional information about this TA Development Program, please contact:

Karron G. Lewis, Center for Teaching Effectiveness, Main Building 2200 (G2100)
The University of Texas at Austin, Texas 78712-1111, USA

Subject: Does the current emphasis on programmes for new full time lecturers acknowledge the route into teaching today is increasingly via teaching assistantships and similar posts, as it is in the USA.?
From: kglewis@mail.utexas.edu (Karron G. Lewis)
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996

We have found that TA Development Programs are still NOT avaliable at many institutions. Therefore, the new faculty who attend our 3-day New Faculty Teaching/Orientation Seminar (NFS) probably have not had that kind of training. In addition, our NFS has several goals in addition to providing pedagogical training. We want the new faculty to get to know some of the specific characteristics of our institution (49,000 students, 2300 faculty, 4000 TAs), resources that are available to them (Learning Skills Center, Center for Teaching Effectiveness, Employee Assistance Program, etc.), and to have an opportunity to meet some of the experienced faculty members (who just happen to be excellent teachers and who do most of the presentations at the NFS) and administrators. They also have a chance to get to know the other new faculty from different disciplines and many form friendships that last for years.

So, I guess my answer is that, no, the programs for new faculty will probably not be eliminated. They may begin to emphasize more advanced pedagogical theories if we find that most of the participants have, indeed, received training as a graduate student. But, I don't think they should be eliminated.

Subject: What are the appropriate goals for such programmes?
From: D.OReilly@uel.ac.uk
Date: Wed, 8 May

My initial response to the questions above is that it all depends - it depends on what will benefit the lecturer, what will benefit the students s/he works with and what will benefit the institution. Within an organisation as diverse and complex as a university, this might well imply that any programme should have a significant element of negotiation about both content and process.

This brings me to a second point, that a focus on the legitimate goals of such a programme should not lead to a focus on content at the expense of process. How the learning takes place is just as important as what is learned - indeed it may carry the stronger messages about teaching and learning in the institution.

Finally, though our own CertHE and MALT at UEL are defined in terms of learning outcomes, I have some reservations about any drift into specifying outcomes as competencies.

Firstly, because I think that in-competencies are very important in professional work, such as lecturing - that to define learning only in terms of competencies is like painting a picture with no shade. This may sound odd, though it echoes an earlier piece I wrote, for Making Sense of Experiential Learning (eds S W Weil and I McGill, SRHE, 1989), in which I argued the importance of incoherence in learning. I am now developing a "general theory of incompetence", which may surface at the Vasa conference.

Secondly, because I suspect that the atomistic nature of competencies is symptomatic of a deeper, perhaps unwitting adherence to a Cartesian, positivistic paradigm which priveleges certain ideas/groups/values and discriminates against others. Again, these are ideas I need to develop further. [Hopefully this will serve to provoke some discussion - and it will be something I can respond further to as well]

Dave O'Reilly, University of East London

Subject: Should successful completion of programmes be linked to personnel decisions such as probation?
From: p.blackmore@admin.warwick.ac.uk (Paul Blackmore)
Date: Mon, 11th Mar 1996

I am currently Academic Staff Development Officer at University of Warwick, having previously lectured at De Montfort University. My views may well spring in part from these experiences; however, they are entirely my own. I am here concerned only with induction into teaching, and have not considered research and administration roles.

My immediate response is that it rather depends on the nature of the programme. Let me start with something straightforward: it is surely appropriate for universities to require lecturers to demonstrate proficiency in their current and immediately foreseeable range of teaching duties before probation is completed. I see no difficulties with this requirement, apart from that of deciding what we might mean by 'proficiency'. I think it is most unlikely that a lecturer will achieve proficiency without, at the minimum, having an innate or developed tendency to reflectiveness, access to adequate teaching resources and guidance when needed, and the time to learn. So I am inclined to believe that the above should all be available during a period of probation (and afterwards, of course).

However, I am not sure that all universities provide these as part of their staff development programme during probation. The majority seem still to be predominantly skills-based and taught, although there are clearly many exceptions. Hence my concern a bout the nature of the programme. If it genuinely does develop proficiency, by offering what I have outlined above, then the programme should be compulsory. If not, then it may simply be taking up time that might be more productively spent in other ways. A programme must also take account of existing knowledge, of disciplinary and individual differences, and of the social settings, some of them very supportive and others less so, in which probationers work. The programme, then, should be very flexible, both in its content and in the personal support it offers. I don't think a programme needs to be certificated necessarily, but for some it may be a motivating factor. It might be termed a framework more than a programme, with a limited number of formal sessions offering basic introductions to those who need them, and an explanation of the probationary framework, its opportunities and its requirements. There should then be access to continuing help, both human (mentors, critical friends) and material (educational development resources, development project funding), and to time.

If, as staff developers, we practise what we tend to preach, we will treat probationers as self-directing adults, allowing individuals to develop without too much formal support if that is how they learn best. The price of that flexibility, though, should be a real requirement to demonstrate proficiency before probation is ended. Probationary staff must gather convincing evidence of their growing proficiency as their probation continues, and of having reached a satisfactory level on its completion, drawing evidence from a wide range of sources. If that is what is meant by a programme - a very flexible framework with some carefully-assessed outcomes - then I would be pleased to see its successful completion linked to probation.