Translating Pedagogical Literature for the Purposes of Pragmatic Classroom Practice
Translating the Pedagogical Literature for the Purposes of Pragmatic Classroom Practice
Lorraine Stefani
Director, Centre for Professional Development
The University of Auckland
Paper presented at the Society for Research into Higher Education Conference, University of Edinburgh, 13-15 December 2005
Abstract
In a research-led University it is often a struggle to maintain a focus on enhancement of teaching and the quality of the student learning experience.Much of the input on enhancement of teaching and learning comes from Educational Development Units.To gain credibility educational or academic developers must themselves be seen to be taking a scholarly research-led approach to our work.The research as it currently stands on the impact of academic development on changing and influencing the behaviour of academic staff and in turn on the impact on standout learning outcomes suggests that intensive development opportunities, such as those provided through postgraduate accredited programmes of development are the best means of effecting change.
This paper suggests that academic developers must explicitly show that our work has a solid research base and pedagogical underpinning.It also highlights how academic developers can use models relating to curriculum design and development to facilitate both a translation of some of the underpinning pedagogical research to make this research accessible to academic staff more accustomed to thinking in their disciplinary language and a translation of pedagogical models for the purpose of enabling staff to see these models in disciplinary terms rather than in purely generic terms.
Introduction
There is a general consensus that the higher education curriculum should enable students to become ‘critical thinkers’ (Soden and Stefani, 2001).However, for academic staff new to teaching in higher education, it is fair to say that many of them begin their career with a staff-centred view of the curriculum, considering only the needs within the discipline which often don’t go much beyond course content and traditional modes of course delivery and assessment.
Traditional modes of teaching, frequently based on ‘transmission’ of knowledge and information very often fail to engender critical thinking and other higher order skills and indeed often impede the development of higher order cognitive skills.If we are not explicitly fostering such key skills it is highly unlikely that we are assessing for them.
Moving staff forward from a content driven model of teaching and assessment towards a more scholarly, reflective model of facilitating student learning can be problematic.Academic staff are accustomed to thinking in their disciplinary language (Becher and Trowler, 2001) but they are not necessarily accustomed to thinking through appropriate pedagogical models for their different populations of students, nor of thinking or reflecting on the impact their teaching has on student learning.
Part of the problem of course is the disproportionate attention focussed on traditional disciplinary based research with respect to rewarding scholarship as compared with the attention being paid to rewarding the scholarship of teaching (Boyer 1990, Elton, 2003).There is also a failure or at the very least a reluctance to explore and conceptualise the links between research and teaching.There are though increasing signs of a move towards valuing and rewarding teaching, not least of all because of the changing nature of student populations, and changing student expectations (e.g. Dearing, 1997).
Working to change academics’ approach to facilitating student learning and to develop their understanding of the complexities of teaching and learning at higher education level, requires that educational developers themselves take a scholarly, reflective approach to facilitating the learning of academic staff.
This paper outlines a means of engaging academic staff in critically analysing the process of curriculum design in the context of a course module on teaching, learning and assessment, using a combination of a modification of Cowan and Harding’s Logical Model of Curriculum Development (1986), Biggs’ theory of constructive alignment of teaching, learning and assessment (1999) and Stefani and Nicol's model of Feedback on Student Learning (1997).Using Cowan and Harding’s model of curriculum development allows engagement with the intended learning outcomes for a course or programme of study, followed by an analysis of how one might assess student learning and what one might assess to align with the intended learning outcomes and how one might link learning and teaching to assessment.Bigg's model of constructive alignment affirms the importance of academic staff re-aligning their conception of the curriculum with how students experience the curriculum, and Stefani and Nicol's model explores ways of affirming students' learning through appropriate points of feedback on their learning.
Facilitating discussion and dialogue using the models stated is intended to give academic staff a sense of ownership over their learning in that instead of engaging only in a generic discussion, participants in a workshop session can explore the linkage of the models to their disciplinary based requirements and their current classroom practices.For example, if the intended learning outcomes for a course include skills such as ‘critical thinking’,‘analysis’, ‘evaluation’, ‘interpretation’ etc, academic staff themselves must articulate what these terms might mean within their disciplinary context, how they might assess for these skills and how they might facilitate learning in such a way that students understand these terms of reference.
The point of such an exercise is to highlight the problematic nature of indicating that our intentions are to engender higher order thinking skills and to assess for these skills, if we ourselves have not interrogated what we mean.If we are not explicit about what we mean in a disciplinary context it is unlikely our students will recognise what is expected of them – and thus they may well resort to tackling assessments and assignments in a manner indicative of surface learning and memorisation of course content (Stefani, 2004).
The learning context for staff is an aspect of a core module on Teaching, Learning and Assessment within an accredited postgraduate Continuing Professional Development programme targeted primarily at academic staff new to teaching.The overall purpose of this programme is to provide a framework for self-directed, reflective professional development, with the intention of promoting the concept of the scholarship of teaching and learning contextualised to different disciplinary teaching and learning needs.
Getting the Scholarship of Teaching onto the Higher Education Agenda
There are a number of tensions that exist both for higher education as a whole and for individual academics working within their discipline.At institutional level, there are tensions: between increasing levels of accountability relating to effective and efficient use of public funding while at the same time there is a constant downward pressure on the amount of resource available for Universities to do their job properly; the growth in the potential of Communications and Information Technology (ICT) and the imperative to build this into the student learning curriculum against the backdrop of a skills gap in terms of staff use of ICT; the uncertain dynamics of the long term needs of the employment market for graduates and the skills that graduates should possess in the context of lifelong learning (Stefani, 2005).All of these issues call for changes in the ways that Universities both corporately and individually approach what is arguably their most important task, i.e. facilitating student learning (Elton, 1999).For individual staff members there is increased pressure on them to live up to the high expectations of research output given that this is deemed such an important measure of both institutional and individual success.How then do we promote an approach to teaching that involves reflection, careful attention to curriculum design, alignment between student learning and how we assess that learning?How do we promote a scholarly approach to teaching and facilitating student learning?
As Barnett and Coate (2005) suggest the matter that is arguably at the heart of higher education, the curriculum, is noticeable for its absence in public debate and in the literature on higher education.Do academic staff fully understand what it means to design, develop and deliver a coherent, effective, accessible curriculum for an increasingly diverse student population that lives up to the expectations of a University education(Stefani and Matthew, 2002)?
It is not necessarily clear that academic staff in Universities actually interrogate the meaning of the expectations of a University education.Elton (1999) has argued that individuals take up lecturing positions in Universities because of their love of teaching, but may be forced to place more emphasis on research performance.However conversations with academic staff in a prominent New Zealand university indicate that many new lecturers take up their positions precisely because of a passion for research and a greater level of job security.There are fewer opportunities for researchers to obtain secure research positions in a country as small as New Zealand.This then does not indicate that we can take it for granted that all academics have a love of teaching, nor that they are necessarily committed to understanding the complexities of student learning.This is a potential problem for Universities at a time of greater levels of accountability for the student learning experience at tertiary level.
In this context of uncertainty of the aspirations of academic staff relating to supporting and enhancing the student learning experience it is not surprising that there has been an increased emphasis on requiring academic staff to engage in professional development relating to what should be the primary activity of academic staff - teaching their students and teaching them well.In other words, what we must focus on is the professionalisation of teaching in higher education.As Liz Beaty states however, the move towards a professional status for teaching in higher education has a long and somewhat tortured history (Beaty, 2005).While most professional groups have controlled their own move towards accreditation of their professional practice, higher education has had to be brought to the concept of accreditation of their teaching somewhat reluctantly.The armoury used against professionalisation / accreditation of practice has been and continues to be the issues of: autonomy, academic freedom and the relationship between the discovery of new knowledge, as in disciplinary based research, and the dissemination of this new knowledge to others - in the form of teaching our students.Since the polarisation of teaching and research (Boyer, 1990) it has been and still is the case that academics are appointed not on the basis of their teaching expertise but on the basis of their subject expertise and their research prowess (Brew, 2001).The misguided view that academic staff should be rewarded on the basis of their traditional disciplinary based research prowess and that it can simply be deduced and assumed that research excellence translates to teaching excellence essentially means that Universities have brought it upon themselves that many academics fail to see the link between taking a scholarly approach to research and to teaching.Most institutions that take great pride in labelling themselves as research-led Universities are tunnel-visioned in assuming that their position in the research-output league tables reflects the quality of the student learning experience and the quality of teaching within any institution.The label 'research-led' applies only to traditional disciplinary based research.It rarely seems to have any linkage with the notion of research-led teaching as ensuring that the teaching and teaching strategies are in any way premised on the vast body of research that exists pertaining to teaching and student learning at higher or tertiary education level.
The U.K., however, has taken a lead in moving forward on the thorny issue of professionalisation of teaching.During the 1990's educational developers were engaging in debate as to how best to support the professional development of new academic staff members through induction and initial training (Beaty, 2005).The Staff and Educational Development Association (SEDA, U.K.), developed a teacher accreditation programme during the '90's (SEDA, 2005) which gained a remarkable level of success in a relatively short period of time.The Dearing Report (NCIHE, 1997) strongly advocated the professionalisation of teaching.One outcome of the Report was the setting up of a new organisation specifically designed to be a professional body for teachers in higher education, the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (ILTHE,1999).Individual staff could become members of ILTHE by presenting a reflective portfolio of their academic practice focusing on five broad areas of their work:
- teaching and the support of learning
- contribution to the design and planning of learning activities
- assessment and giving feedback to students
- developing effective learning environments and student learning support systems
- reflective practice and personal development
A course based route to membership was also available.Most Universities in the U.K., through their Educational Development Units,already offered or developed post-Dearing accredited, postgraduate, certificate level programmes for academic and related staff and made it a condition of the probationary period that new staff members would be actively pursuing this qualification.If these programmes were accredited by the ILTHE, the individual could gain membership of this body.
The ILTHE itself became fraught with political problems but without doubt its existence was an important driver in the move towards professionalisation of teaching and promoting the scholarship of teaching and learning in the U.K.
Promoting the Scholarship of Teaching Through Accredited Programmes
Getting the scholarship of teaching and learning onto institutional agendas is no mean feat particularly in research-led Universities.There is a problem however in terms of the credibility of educational development/developers which may or may not be justified, but to be taken seriously we have a duty and responsibility to show that the types of educational development opportunities we offer (such as accredited programmes) are worth the investment in staff time, implementation of institutional policies and the (re)development of teaching and learning strategies.It is not always easy for educational developers themselves to carry out the critical research that tells us of the impact of accredited programmes or tailored and targeted development opportunities.However, Graham Gibbs has carried out substantial research on the question "Do accredited programmes for higher education teachers work?"
He has asked of educational developers some critical questions:
- What is the rational of your programme for teachers?
- Why did you choose the programme design and training methods you have?
- What is your programme designed to achieve?
- What are the most important outcomes of your programme?
- What kinds of outcome of your programme are most important to you?
Responses to these questions from educational developers include:
- Training to develop skills and competence.
- Training to develop reflective practitioners.
- Developing a language and form of discourse to discuss and analyse teaching.
- Training to move teachers from a teacher-centred to a learner-centred conception of teaching -
'Changing and developing teachers practice depends on changing and developing conceptions of teaching and learning and their perceptions of knowledge and learning.Those are necessary conditions for change.'
- Training for organisational change:
'The point of the course is very much integrated into the University rather than a free standing course because the idea is that you get a critical mass of lecturers who have been through the course and show values, and then they will begin to make a difference.It is actually quite hard for individual lecturers in a tough faculty to make a difference.'
From Gibbs (2002)
Gibbs (2002) further reported that evidence of teaching enhancement due to the availability of and staff participation in accredited professional development programmes is somewhat slim.However Gordon et al (2003) in a report commissioned by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) on Research on the Scholarship of Teaching reported a positive change in stakeholders understanding of scholarship as applied to teaching and learning in U.K. Universities.Academic staff showed much more awareness of the notion of the scholarship of teaching as expressed by Boyer (1990):
'The scholarship of teaching encompasses initial preparation for teaching in higher education, appropriate continuing professional development (CPD), accredited CPD, recognition of the role of academic guilds and evidencing the Scholarship of Teaching' quoted in Stefani (2005)
There does appear to be a growing view if not consensus which recognises the need for a reflective approach to the facilitation of student learning, an ability to learn experientially about learning, and an understanding of teaching based on an underpinning body of pedagogical research.Kreber and Cranton (2000) elaborate on the concept of the 'scholarship of teaching' suggesting that it includes both ongoing learning about teaching and the demonstration of teaching knowledge.The sorts of questions Kreber and Cranton (2000) believe that academic staff should pose include:
- What are the broad purposes of university education and what constitute significant and meaningful goals of teaching in my discipline which align with these broad purposes?
- What do I know about student learning and development in relation to these goals?
- What do I know about curriculum design and development that would create learning experiences that link with the broader purposes of a university education?
(Adapted from Kreber and Cranton, 2000)
These are important questions but they are not necessarily in the forefront of the minds of academic staff beginning their careers.It is also the case that most new academic staff members are not aware of or at least not tuned in to the vast body of research on student learning and facilitation of student learning.
How then do we enable academic staff to translate the pedagogical literature and the underpinning body of research on student learning into pragmatic classroom action that will help to achieve the goals of a university education?
The next part of this paper will explore these questions in more detail.
The Research-informed Basis of Academic Development
Regarding the ways in which educational developers work with staff, there is a certain level of commonality across different Universities and types of higher education institutions.The main strategies for educational development inputs include: