Developing new academics’
self-perception as agents of change: a cross-disciplinary case study
Fran Beaton
Unit for the Enhancement of
Learning and Teaching
+44 (0) 1227 824167
Abstract
This
paper reviews a project run within a university Postgraduate Certificate in
Higher Education (PGCHE). The project, implementing changes in content and
delivery of a PGCHE module, Innovation in Learning and Teaching, had three
purposes. These were to promote peer learning among new lecturers and teachers
(PGCHE participants) engaged in curriculum change; to increase institutional
dissemination of the projects they had undertaken and the resources they had
developed; and develop a framework for interdisciplinary exchange of expertise
and interest. The aim was also to
explore the effect of peer learning on participants’ own perception of their
role as agents of change. The focus is on evaluating the impact of changes made
to one module in response to specific concerns.
Prior to
the revision of the module, Innovation in Learning and Teaching, very few
participants enrolled; those who did worked largely in isolation. The changes
made to the module included the use of interdisciplinary learning sets; greater
involvement of mentors; accessing literature on evaluation; a greater use of
technology. These changes resulted
in a number of outcomes.
Participants developed strong and lasting peer networks beyond their academic
departments, with a consequent impact on their developing professional identity.
The teaching team felt it was useful to have a forum encouraging
participants to explore and engage in curriculum innovation, and essential to
have more robust processes to engage participants’ colleagues and students in
evaluating the impact of each project.
Many projects continued to be developed and become more widely
disseminated.
Keywords:
curriculum change; innovation; peer learning; academic identity
Introduction
This
paper explores three areas.
Firstly, it reviews the impact of curriculum change on a PGCHE, and how this
affected one module, especially through an attempt to encourage peer learning
among PGCHE participants (early career academics) engaged in learning and
teaching related initiatives. Secondly, it evaluates strategies designed to
improve dissemination of such initiatives. Finally, it considers the effect of
these changes on academics’ self-perception as potential agents of change.
The paper
considers these in the light of the significance of disciplinary variation; and
the role of university teacher education programmes on teacher development and
behaviour. Data was drawn from
participants’ feedback from module and exit questionnaires and interviews with a
sample of former participants.
This feedback, and the teaching team’s own reflections, provided insights
into the strengths and limitations of the programme, resulting in a major
curriculum review in 2006.
Institutional background
Kent is a
pre-‘92 university, originally with a single (Canterbury) campus offering a
traditional curriculum - Humanities, Social Sciences, Natural
Sciences
- but now on several sites
including Medway, a relatively deprived area of mid-Kent, a campus with a
particular remit to attract students who are the first in their family to enter
Higher Education. Although the University does not hold data on the proportion
of such students, anecdotal evidence suggests that they feature more in
undergraduate cohorts than five years ago, particularly on vocational courses
such as Pharmacy and Social
Work. Overall between 2001 and 2007
fulltime student numbers have more than doubled. The traditional curriculum has
also changed: there is now Journalism and Creative Writing in the English
degree; Science Communication in Sciences degrees; and Forensic Science has
emerged as a new discipline. Even
though most new staff at
Post
Graduate Certificate in Higher Education (PGCHE): background
Since
2002, PGCHE completion has been a probationary requirement for all new lecturing
staff at
The
remaining 15 credits were gained by taking one of four optional modules in
preparation for particular roles, such as postgraduate research supervision, or
engage in teaching projects, of which Innovation in Learning and Teaching is an
example. This structure offered participants, whether fulltime probationary
lecturers or the increasing numbers of teaching staff taking the PGCHE
voluntarily (postgraduate students, Graduate Teaching Assistants and sessional
tutors) limited flexibility. Successive PGCHE cohorts brought diversity: of
experience, of disciplinary and educational background, of their university
roles, of professional interests. Those making the mid-career transition into a
lecturing post from other professions,
Rationale
for review
The main
aim of the PGCHE review was to provide appropriate and academically robust
support for all new university teachers with greater flexibility and variety,
and balancing the generic and the subject -specific.
Staffing was a critical factor. Until 2004, the Academic Practice Team,
whose responsibilities include the PGCHE, comprised staff on fractional
short-term secondments from academic departments, equivalent to 2.4 staff for 70
part-time participants. From 2005
the team grew: 4 full time academics, education specialists with teaching and
research experience in that discipline, working with over 200 participants in
liaison with seconded colleagues.
The
underpinning philosophy was to combine the development of practical skills with
scope for participants to explore and articulate their perceptions of the nature
of academic practice, grounded in their discipline and the working context; in
other words to provide “…a range of social and discursive pedagogic practices to
construct their sense of what it means to be a teacher.”
(Zukas,2005, p.467). It was
important to address the range of academic activity - teacher, researcher,
member of a disciplinary community. Subject-specific input needed a proper place
in the programme, while maintaining a forum for cross-disciplinary engagement.
We wanted to implement a more varied repertoire of approaches in our
PGCHE teaching, Such variety included opportunities for collaborative work -
mitigating the sense of isolation- and peer support networks of subject area,
common interests, shared experiences and values.
We initiated changes to content and delivery to combine whole-group
teaching, subject - specific seminar discussions and individual investigations.
Finally, we wanted to ensure that PGCHE
participants could connect with the broader academy without disconnecting from
their disciplinary community, and had a safe environment to investigate ideas
and take risks.
The
Innovation in Learning and Teaching module, which I convene, is an example of
this shift in practice. Subsequent
sections of this paper offer some reflections on participants’ self-perception,
the rationale for the use of peer learning, the changes introduced and an
evaluation of their impact, based on my own perspective and interim participant
feedback. Table 1 summarizes the changes made at programme level.
Table 1.
PGCHE Structure 2008
New structure
(APEL available up to 30 credits) |
Introduction to Learning, Teaching and the Academic Environment (15
credits; compulsory for staff new to teaching) |
Critical Perspectives on Academic Practice (15 credits; compulsory
for staff with less than 3 years teaching experience) |
Developing as a Researcher in HE (15 credits, optional) |
Developing as a Research Supervisor (15 credits, optional) |
Technology in the Academic Environment (15 credits, optional) |
The Inclusive Curriculum (15 credits, optional) |
Innovation in Learning and Teaching (15 credits, optional) |
Teaching Languages in HE (15 credits, optional) |
The
Innovation in Learning and Teaching module: development 2004- 07
The
learning outcomes for this module state that participants should
1.
Critically evaluate the principles and theory of your chosen innovation in
learning and teaching
2.
Synthesise this knowledge and understanding in the (re-)design of learning
environments, learning materials and teaching processes, as appropriate for the
innovation you have selected
3.
Present a
critical analysis of the innovation in HE practice
In
2004/05 and 2005/06, three participants (academics on teaching-only contracts)
worked on Innovation projects. They received one-to-one guidance from a member
of staff; in due course their work was marked, one copy returned and one copy
retained. The outcomes of these
projects were, presumably, shared within their home department but there is no
evidence of wider dissemination. In
2006/07 the module was more widely publicised as ‘open to anyone engaged in
curriculum change’ and attracted 15 students, including postgraduates who teach.
The module was restructured to include three taught sessions, combining
tutor input with task-based activity undertaken in discipline-specific groups.
These tasks depended on the nature of participants’ chosen project e.g.
designing new programmes, incorporating technology, or working with a specific
group such as first years or mature students.
Each group received a bibliography of relevant readings. Participant exit
feedback was that they had found the group work useful and rated the module
highly. A number of their projects
were put forward for University teaching prizes, and the winners presented their
work at an award ceremony.
However, I remained concerned about several aspects - listed below - and decided
to implement a number of changes to try to address these with the next cohort:
27 participants, nearly a quarter of the first year PGCHE intake.
Limited
dissemination
The award ceremony, the only dissemination event, was poorly attended, perhaps
due to unfortunate timing rather than lack of interest. To address this,
all projects are now published in a handbook sent to all departments, and a
version posted on the University intranet.
We encourage participants to enter their projects for University teaching
prizes.
Those shortlisted, and the winners, present their work in a variety of fora: in
departments, at Academic Practice Forum events open to all University staff, and
to subsequent PGCHE participants.
Managing subject - specific discussions
One part
of the taught sessions included participants explaining subject-specific
elements to a non-subject specialist.
The intention was to provide participants with practice in communicating
their ideas to a wider audience. However I noticed that such discussions
occasionally became mired in generalities or went off at tangents.
Sometimes the explanation of the innovation required a level of
understanding which only a subject specialist could reasonably be expected to
possess. Time spent on explanations
tended to detract from the pace of the session.
To
address this, the first class began with brief tutor input and a discussion in
Faculty groups, based on a short piece of pre-reading on the theme of curriculum
innovation, with a few key questions to focus participants’ attention.
Participants then worked in pairs with someone from their own, or a cognate,
discipline to outline their proposed innovation. This resulted in a more focused
discussion and a brisker pace throughout the first half of the session.
Participants being tutor-directed rather than self-directed
Participants on many PGCHE modules have commented that they welcome a forum outside their departments in which they can express themselves, develop their ideas and draw on each other’s experiences, a view which I shared. However the way the module had been taught in 06/07 still assumed that individuals would work on their own outside the taught sessions; it provided limited scope for collaborative learning. It was important to offer both, and I felt that peer learning sets, based on Boud, Cohen and Sampson’s model of reciprocal peer learning “the use of teaching and learning strategies in which students learn with and from each other without the immediate intervention of a teacher.” (1999, pp. 413-414) could assist. The purpose was emphatically formative: mutual feedback on work in progress, questioning, being questioned, offering support and encouragement. As tutor, my role was to create opportunities, treating participants as resourceful and active members of a group, and encouraging – not forcing – interaction. Interactions happened firstly in the taught sessions through pair- and group-work. In the second half of the session each participant wrote their project idea on a giant poster for all to read, before grouping the posters thematically: for example, using technology; working with first years; assessment practice. This created groups of 6-8 people. The grouped posters were transcribed and circulated to the whole group. Participants were encouraged to engage in learning set discussions, although they could elect to work in a departmental or Faculty subset too. At the time of writing 15 of the 30 participants who began the module in 07/08 have had electronic or face-to-face contact with each other, chiefly in threes on Departmental lines. One set of 5 (from Humanities and Social Sciences) has met several times, and reports that they are refining their ideas as a result. This is a very encouraging development, which may be due to the fact that at the initial taught session they were immediately enthusiastic about learning sets, and have since gained practical value from working in this way.
The role
of feedback
Individual engagement in group activity varies, and I did not want to attach
marks to participation in each learning set.
Nevertheless, the assessed work for the module requires participants to
show that they have sought feedback from others (a departmental colleague, their
students and a non-departmental peer) in the course of developing and
implementing their innovation. The learning sets help identify a
non-departmental peer, so even if someone is not an active participant in the
whole group, they can engage with one other person at least.
Participant feedback
It is too
early to have a complete picture of the overall impact of this approach;
projects and follow-up work are still in progress.
However, initial participant feedback gathered
The
effect of peer learning on participants’ self-perception
At the
start of the 2007/2008 session, participants were invited to provide a brief
explanation of the potential of this module for their professional development.
Of 20 respondents, 10 felt it provided an impetus to take an initiative;
5 were responding to specific teaching challenges; 2 respondents with
responsibility for developing new curricula wanted the support of a larger group
than was possible in their own subject area.
Several postgraduates observed that they felt “more like a real teacher”
(Personal communications, 2008) through developing an educational initiative.
In the course of the academic year,15 participants reported that the
impact of their innovation within and beyond their home departments had resulted
in a rise in their self-confidence, pleasure in the positive impact their
innovation had had on their students and, for one more experienced participant,
the rekindling of his enthusiasm for teaching by “taking me out of my comfort
zone.” (Personal communication 2008).
Most felt that the peer support climate engendered during the module had
been very important, although departmental encouragement and a sense of
achievement were equally significant.
Although the numbers involved are small, this is consistent with one
finding of Gibbs and Coffey’s (2004) investigation of the impact of university
teacher education programmes in 22 universities in 8 countries. They concluded
that participation in initial training tended to foster positive attitudes and a
stronger student-focused approach. However they warn against assuming that
training in itself results in positive changes; these could be ascribed to a
generally supportive institutional culture and multiple developmental
opportunities (such as mentoring schemes, seminars and conferences) rather than
solely a result of training.
Further
developments 2007/2008
The
success of the Innovation module is evident through practices being adopted in
different disciplines and departments.
For example, one lecturer in Actuarial Science initiated supplemental
instruction on one module. There was clear evidence of improvement in first and
second year students’ exam performance, and the development of communication
skills in the third and fourth year student instructors.
This was one of several aspects singled out for praise by the Institute
and Faculty of Actuaries, the professional body which accredits the BSc
programme. Supplemental Instruction
has now been extended across the first and second year and piloted in two other
departments as a direct result of the interdisciplinary networking fostered by
the Innovation module. Other projects have focussed on skills development.
For example, a skills sessions run by a drama teacher was introduced for
Many
participants remain in contact with each other, formally and
Acknowledgements
I am
indebted to my colleagues in the Academic Practice Team, and the enthusiasm of
so many PGCHE participants, without whom this work would not have been possible.
References
Boud D,
Cohen R and Sampson J (1999) Peer Learning and Assessment,
Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education,
24,no.4
pp 413 - 426
Gibbs G
and Coffey M (2004) The Impact of Training of University Teachers on their
Teaching Skills, their Approach to
Teaching and the Approach to Learning of their Students,
Active
Learning in Higher Education,
5:1; pp. 87–100, Sage Publications
Knight
P(2002) A systemic approach to professional development: learning as practice,
Teaching and
Teacher Education Issue 18 pp.
229 – 241
Di Napoli
R (2007) Educational development – a view
from outside: national trends and institutional issues at
Zukas M
(2005) Pedagogic identity in
L.M.English (ed) International Encyclopedia of Adult Education
Palgrave MacMillan