Watters & Diezmann: Accrediting University Teachers
Accrediting university teachers: Contrasting the intended and experienced curriculum.
James J Watters and Carmel M Diezmann
Faculty of Education
QueenslandUniversity of Technology
Brisbane, AUSTRALIA
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Glamorgan, 14-17 September 2005
This paper is a reflective analysis of the philosophy, focus and outcomes of a Graduate Certificate in Higher Education (GCHE) course implemented in a large AustralianUniversity. The reflections of both the coordinator and a student provide salient information about the educational and corporate value of the course. Formal and informal evaluation collected by the coordinator suggests the course provides a rich educational experience providing several outcomes. The course enables students to benchmark their practices against advocated practices; it provides a theoretical foundation to explain certain practices; it extends the skills and knowledge of students and provides credibility through qualifications. At a local level, the experiences of one academic provide insights into the particular benefits and relevance of the course for her professional growth. Collectively, these perspectives provide the means for exploring the alignment of the intended and experienced curriculum and provide insights to the accreditation of university teachers nationally and internationally.
1
Watters & Diezmann: Accrediting University Teachers
Background
If universities are to remain relevant in a knowledge society, they must not just be sites of knowledge production but also be effective knowledge disseminators though their service and teaching activities. Contemporary society is seeking innovative, self-directed, and creative individuals who can contribute effectively to society (Candy, 2000). Central to this goal is the quality of teaching. Thus all institutions of higher and further eduction must enhance the status and quality of the teaching and learning experiences they provide for students in the context of a more market-oriented environment of mass higher education.
Attempts to define, recognise and enhance the quality of teaching in higher education gained momentum during the 1990s following Boyer’s (1990) conceptualisation of the Scholarship of Teaching (Aylett & Gregory, 1996; Ramsden, Margetson, Martin, & Clark, 1995). These ideas illuminated the scholarly legitimacy of teaching in higher education and elevated the debate advocating formalised teaching qualifications among university teachers. Given that teaching academics are usually selected on the basis of their disciplinary knowledge and not that of teaching qualifications, formal teacher education and qualification has been argued to be an essential aspect of academic staff development (Daly, 1994; Gaff & Lambert, 1996; Jones, 2003; Travis, Outlaw, & Reven, 2001). In response, courses designed for university teaching staff have proliferated in a number of countries.
This paper analyses the philosophy, focus and outcomes of one Graduate Certificate in Higher Education (GCHE) course that was introduced early in the 1990s in a large Australian university. The paper is written in the spirit of reflective practice and analyses the development of the course and the extent to which it addresses the needs of teaching academics in higher education through the voices of the course coordinator and a graduating student. This course is designed to meet the needs of those teaching in Higher Education and related tertiary education settings.
Methodology
Learning through reflection is deemed an important tool to analyse deliberate human action, and hence, forms a methodological approach to understanding practice. Several strategies have been proposed to guide reflective practice and much has been written about the models and problems associated with reflection (Boud & Walker, 1998; Hatton & Smith, 1995; Moon, 2000; Zeichner, 1986). This study draws upon the notions of Reflection-on-Action (Schön, 1983) to provide an account of the role played by a formalised course for teaching in higher education. In particular, we adopt the frameworks of Kreber (1999) and Watson and Wilcox (2000). Kreber’s framework provides a structure, which emphasises what should be reflected upon. Drawing on the work of Mezirow (1991) he proposes that individuals who learn about teaching engage in content, process and premise reflection. Content reflection in this context helps us describe our beliefs about what we know and should be teaching. In essence, we are asking ourselves whether the course and what constitutes the body of knowledge that informs the course is appropriate. By engaging in process reflection, we seek to validate what we do. To achieve this, we focus on collecting data from students on how they engaged in the course, and the professional benefits and outcomes for them. Finally, engaging in premise reflection requires us to reconceptualise the issues and justify the approaches taken or suggest alternatives. Juxtaposed on this approach is Watson and Wilcox’s (2000) framework for reflection that also encapsulates three elements. Firstly, they describe reflection-on-action in terms of “quick reading”, which provides a wholistic impression of the issue. Secondly, they argue for a “zooming in”, which provides a close analysis of a particular aspect of the issue. Finally, they advocate a “zooming out” to contextualise and critique the issue, and suggest changes.
The reflections are provided from the perspective of the coordinator (JJW) of the course who has taught within the course for seven years and has coordinated for four years. The focus participant is a recent graduate of the course whose disciplinary background is education.
A three-phase approach to data collection and analysis is used in this paper to accommodate Kreber (1999) and Watson and Wilcox (2000)’s frameworks. Phase 1 focuses on Content. This phase comprises (a) a “quick read” of the literature; (b) “zooming in” through a document analysis, feedback from university stakeholders and course participants, descriptions of artefacts, and reflections from the focus participant; and (c) a “zooming out”, which contextualises the emergent content issues. Phase 2 focuses on Process. This phase consists of (a) a “quick read” of course delivery approaches and course alignment with institutional priorities; (b) “zooming in” encompassing a description of university processes and alignment of the course with these, a description of course participants, and feedback from university stakeholders and course participants, and a reflection from the focus participant; and (c) a “zooming out”, which contextualises the emergent process issues. Collectively, Phases 1 and Phase 2 provide a situational analysis or reality check of the accreditation of university teachers in our institution. Phase 3 focuses on Premises and presents a summary of the status quo as a prelude to the articulation of a set of premises related to the advancement of knowledge about the accreditation of university teachers. This phase is also reported at three levels, namely, a “quick read”, “zooming in” and “zooming out”.
Participants
There are three types of participants in this study. Firstly, there are university stakeholders. This group comprises Assistant Deans of Teaching and Learning from each Faculty, who oversee course development, teaching and quality management within each faculty, and members of a Staff Development Network, who comprise members representing Human Resources Staff Developers, Teaching and Learning Support Services and Information Technology Services. Each of these latter groups is responsible for some aspect of staff training and development, for example, staff induction and career development, use of online teaching facilities and introduction to teaching support mechanisms, and specific technology competencies associated with software applications and specialist hardware. Secondly, there are course participants. These students enrolled in the course between 2002 and 2004. Finally, there is the focus participant (CMD), who enrolled in the course in 2003 and graduated in 2004.
Data Sources
The data sources consist of documents, survey responses, written reflections and artefacts. Documents consist broadly of the literature and specifically of Course documentation. Survey Responses were obtained from university stakeholders and course participants. University stakeholders were invited to contribute information related to relevance of the units, value and impact on teaching and learning in various faculties, and how the course might be strengthened. Course participants were sent a questionnaire that addressed issues of relevance, appropriateness, effectiveness and efficiency of the content and delivery processes. The questionnaire included ten open-ended questions some of which comprised specific sub-questions. The full questionnaire was sent to a cohort of students who enrolled in 2002 (n=30) and a shortened questionnaire that focussed on relevance, and appropriateness was sent to those enrolled in 2004 (n=54). Follow-up invitations were sent to students and a book voucher was raffled as an inducement to respond. Written reflections during the course were obtained from the focus participant. She also provided further reflections through her contributions to this paper. Artefacts comprise assignments and publications prepared by the focus participant. Publications are an especially important artefact because they provide evidence that the teacher is fully engaged in the process of scholarship (e.g., Boyer, 1990). That is, the teacher investigates the relevant literature, is reflective about his or her teaching; and contributes to professional thinking through publication.
Data analysis
The primary focus of the data analysis was to identify emergent themes. The various data sources provided the opportunity to explore these themes. The document analysis encompassed a historical analysis and a contemporary analysis. The historical analysis provides a backdrop to examine the literature that comments on the development and purposes of GCHE type courses. The contemporary analysis explored information from course websites of Australian Universities and provided the details of current practices and scope of content taught. Course materials in the form of Unit Outlines provided a more detailed profile of content and teaching processes. The survey responses provided insight into the key issues identified by University stakeholders and Course participants. The primary focus of the analysis was on the congruence between the intended and experienced curriculum. The written reflections of the focus participant provide an in-depth look at the congruence between the intended and experienced curriculum and one student’s expectations. The artefacts provide an additional insight into the learning of the focus student because they provide a synthesis of the learner’s knowledge.
Reflections
The reflection on this course will explore Content, Process and Premises integral to the course using the reflective tool of Watson and Wilcox (2000).
Content
A quick read:In order to reflect on the content and focus of the course we explore four sources of information that provide direction: the historical purpose of universities, the international response to calls for professionalism of teaching, the literature on what constitutes food teaching, and finally, the structure of the course.
The role of universities tends to flow in cycles. In the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries, universities taught the trivium, a curriculum that comprised rhetoric, logic and grammar as the basic preparation for entry into all the professions. The role of the university, right up until the end of the nineteenth century, was to provide a well-rounded education for those people (usually men) who could afford it. Through a study of these areas students were able to pursue a career in the clergy, education or law. The English and, more particularly, the Scottish model of university education became the basis of Australian universities. In this model, universities provided college accommodation for their students, who were ascribed a tutor responsible for their learning and offered the “traditional” disciplines of medicine, science, arts, law and engineering. Similarly, the first American universities were largely concerned with teaching and focused on educating their students for future civic and religious leadership (Beattie, 2000). However by the 19th Century a research orientation had grown up in the German universities, which influenced those scholars who spent their formative years there. Post World War II, a dramatic change in academic life occurred. The focus on scientific research and training in universities increased substantially and scholars began to identify their research and teaching with their disciplines rather than with the academy as a whole. As in most western countries, university education has undergone unprecedented expansion enabling a greater number of people to attend university many as mature aged students. In Australia, numbers of students has escalated over fifty years from 30 000 in 1955 to close to one million in 2005. Accompanying this expansion has been increased policy intervention in the operation of universities by Federal Government. In the Australian context, Universities — almost all of which are public institutions — are established under state government legislations. However, federal intervention in the management of Australian universities has become pervasive in the last 20 years influenced by international neo-liberal principles (Marginson, 2003) and implemented through fiscal policies.
A major area of policy focus in the past decade has been on enhancing the quality of teaching in higher education. What has been done to achieve this goal? In the United States Lederman and Niess (1999) cite one W. B Pitkin who, writing in 1909 in the Popular Science Monthly, argued for specialist doctoral training in education for university and college teachers. By the 1990s training of graduate teaching assistants in educational principles had become widespread (Druger, 1997; Wulff & Austin, 2004) and indeed includes higher studies as Doctor of Arts (Travis, Outlaw, & Reven, 2001). In Germany and other European countries, pedagogical training has been aligned with the nature of the institution. Research universities have provided little opportunity for pedagogical training whereas polytechnic colleges have required teaching staff to undertake such training (Leitner, 1998). Although policy declarations appear to favour pedagogical training, the uptake of programs in higher education has been slow. A similar situation existed in Australia in the early 1990s, which prompted strong criticism of Australian universities by Ramsden, Margetson, Martin, and Clarke, (1995) who argued that Australian universities needed to enhance the professionalisation of teaching.
We now examine what issues and content should be addressed in such courses. Other than general principles of adult education there is little literature to guide what would constitute worthwhile courses for university teacher training. Reports on quality teaching focus on enhancing student-teacher relationships (Bain, 2004; Sander, Stevenson, King, & Coates, 2000), the capacity to be a good explainer (Soenksen, 1992) or the level of content expertise (Sears, 2002) or strength to manage complexity with confidence (McArdle & Coutts, 2003). In terms of teacher knowledge, we can extrapolate from the work of Shulman (1987) to argue personal expertise across content and pedagogy. However, few consider broader discourses and actions about educational practices (Nicoll & Harrison, 2003). Perhaps one exception is the rationale provided by Rowland (1999) who attempts to argue that the guiding theoretical framework draws upon the individual understandings of teaching and learning in higher education. Each practitioner brings with him or her perspectives that are drawn from their own disciplines in an attempt to transfer to the context of educational practice. Given the relative lack of deep understanding of educational theory, practitioners operate from within their comfort zone co-creating educational theory applicable to their contexts.
Although many formal teacher professional development courses emerged during the 1990s, evidence of the effectiveness of these formal programs is limited. Some suggest that they do increase scores on learning experience questionnaires of academics who have had full training (Coffey & Gibbs, 2000). Uptake has been slow possibly because, as Macdonald (2001) has pointed out, courses are problematic for managers and teaching staff alike, “as they require expensive time release, and/or inconvenient disruption to teaching and research commitments” (p. 154). He also critiques short courses endorsing their ineffectiveness but suggesting they satisfy the need to be seen to be doing something. Clearly, if staff are to provide richer input into the lives of the students they teach, universities need to provide appropriate courses and staff need to engage in learning experiences beyond their specialist disciplinary knowledge. Although some advocate planning such courses around deficits (Martínez, Gros, & Romaña, 1998) others are advocating community or collaborative learning strategies (Macdonald, 2001; Prushiek, McCarty, & Mcintyre, 2001).
Writing at a time when formal courses were being developed, Ryan (1996) described the mixed motivation for these courses:
The Graduate Certificates in many Australian universities grew out of these shorter courses, and, I would suggest, from mixed motives: a recognition that staff operating in a culture which revolves around the possession of paper qualifications might prefer their staff development activities recognised in an accreditation; that a focussed course which blended a theoretical component with practice would induce long-term change more than one-off workshops; that the peer group approach would permeate institutional culture via a ripple effect by bringing together staff from across the organisation; and perhaps more strategically, to bolster the academic credibility of staff development units with real EFTSU (Equivalent Full-time Student Unit).(p. 1)
There are 39 universities in Australia. All but four offer some graduate certificate course designed to provide formal instruction for academic and professional staff in universities and related to teaching and learning in higher education. This situation contrasts with the US where only 19 institutions were reported to offer similar programs (Travis, et al., 2001). Of the four that do not offer their own course, one has a relationship with another university for its staff to undertake that institution’s course. A summary of the structure, mode of delivery and responsible organisational unit is provided in Table 1. Most courses are highly focussed on teaching and learning in higher education with some scope for broader consideration of teaching in other tertiary settings or educational institutions such as seminaries, or hospitals. The majority of institutions adopt a model comprising four subjects or units of study, delivered through a Faculty of Education, in a face-to-face mode. The model we describe in this paper is similarly a four-unit course delivered through a Faculty of Education but primarily in an online mode with some face-to-face elements.