I think you have added useful emphasis to something that is really
important, Haydn
What we perhaps crave are system-wide strategies or that elusive
joined-up thinking which, in our paper, we have been identifying as
'ecological' factors, though that isn't quite the term we need. We use
an organic metaphor to avoid suggesting that rational planning models
can predict and control complex and messy activity systems which involve
human behaviours. I believe this institutionally joined-up model is a
primary focus (holy grail?) for SEDA's PDF awards.
If I weren't working in a different area, right now, I'd love to look at
your evaluation data and see where it matches / diverges from what we
gathered as 'outsiders' working with seven or so institutions. Maybe
Tony Brand, if he's not too busy with his new job finding out how Anglia
Ruskin works, would be able to take that forward?
I don't think we intended to suggest, in our papers, that the 'old trial
and error approaches' are the same as non-formal learning, though I can
see where you're coming from on that one. Maybe somebody has an example
of a programme that is built around non-formal, situated professional
learning - action research, action learning, professional dialogue,
etc.? For me, this approach could provide a coherent alternative to a
'delivered' curriculum - 60 credits for 600 hours study; perhaps it
would also give new lecturers a sense of their professional identity,
value and purpose as teachers in the institution / professional context,
as well as in the broader 'scholarship of teaching' / fitness to
practice universe.
Jo
-----Original Message-----
From: Mathias H.S. [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 06 September 2006 11:13
To: Tait J Dr (SCEPTrE); [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: HEA registration query - more questions
Just to add to this discussion, the evaluations we have undertaken at
Southampton suggets that contextual factors, such as the lack of
scheduled time to participate in programmes and the rather informal
management within schools in relation to support and timetabling, are
significant factors in inhibiting engagmement rather than the motivation
of new lecturers to participate. The ratings and qualitative feedback we
have received indicates that the programme is rated highly and is
beneficial. Longer term, the curriculum environment is such to make
continuing innovation and development difficult.
I have read Peter and Jo's reports but I am not sure that I would agree
that new lecturers prefer the old trial and error approach, etc. In the
very early days of academic staff development, the research indicated
that new staff preferred something more formalised. The problem with the
osmosis approach is that old approaches are perpetuated. The issue seems
to me to one of stategy and management in institutions and some
joined-up thinking. The whole area of educational/staff development has
always been a bit of a political football as far as institutions are
concerned and very sensitive to the external environment. All of us I
suspect have been through a whole host of institutioonal restructuring
in this area as the external ground rules change. With the less
assertive environments we are now in (eg apparent diffidence of HEA and
QAA), more changes are likely to be on the way. At Southampton, we have
already restructured our EDU and only module 1 of our PGCert is now
compulsory.
The next change is likely to come along as fees kick in and our
'consumers' and their parents take a more assertive line re valaue for
money.
Haydn Mathias
University of Southampton
________________________________
From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development
Association on behalf of Jo Tait
Sent: Tue 05/09/2006 13:03
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: HEA registration query - more questions
Hi
I've been watching this conversation with great interest and wondered if
the time had come to draw attention to the work on professional
formation of teachers that Peter Knight et al (that includes me) have
been plugging away at over the past 6 years or so. Thanks, James, for
making it easy for people to download some of the outputs from our work.
Janet's 'oh no!' response to the suggestion of requiring a full MA for
professional teachers certainly resonated with me and my experience of
academics' busy lives. As a rule I have found that it's a struggle for
them to justify much more than a half-day course, let alone the
commitment to an MA/MSc. And what about teachers whose primary role is
in a profession - the part-time tutors who increasingly provide teaching
and assessment in universities? I've never enjoyed teaching unwilling
learners for reasons of compliance, though we all recognise the power
of policy to impose roles and practices - that was the question that
started the conversation, after all.
Our research looks at the question of effectiveness - what do teachers
say that pgcerts actually add to their learning and their practice? EPGC
(our most recent study) supports earlier work claiming that people
mostly don't learn to teach by being TAUGHT how to teach. They learn in
a complex range of situated, just-in-time ways that mostly involve other
people (mentors and other colleagues), experiences and conversation
about experiences, feedback from peers and students and, of course,
observation and being observed. People seem to value the environment
that provides SPACE for that non-formal learning and sense-making more
than the formal course input, while appreciating the value of ideas and
theories when relevant to their practice. I wonder why we (collectively
as educational developers) imagine that this space needs to look like a
60 credit or, heaven forbid, 180 credit programme to achieve the desired
outcome - a mindful teacher. [It couldn't be something to do with the
fact that a 60 credit course attracts HEFCE funding could it?]
Read the reports, or at least the preliminary findings.
http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/document.cfm?docid=8640
http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/document.cfm?documentid=8574
Do they add anything to the discussion? How do they compare with Prosser
et al's evaluations of PGCerts? What are the implications (if any) for
Barry's question that started this conversation?
Jo
-----Original Message-----
From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development
Association [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Janet Strivens
Sent: 04 September 2006 11:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: HEA registration query - thanks
> Perhaps, rather than just doing a post graduate certificate, lecturers
> should be encouraged to do a masters in education. That way there
> would be no doubt as to the amount of work that went in to obtaining
> the qualification,
Oh no, please! An 'M' level PG Cert as a requirement for new staff is
bad enough - I think there's a real danger that in insisting on new
lecturers doing a qualification at this level, with all the other
pressures they have to contend with, what they get is a surface level of
theory and no real development of their skills and confidence in
observing and monitoring their own practice. Let initial programmes
concentrate on supporting new staff on what they need to survive and
developing the habit of collecting evidence on the effects of what they
do - this way, once staff have found their feet they are more likely to
come back for further help, advice and support - and maybe to enrol on
programmes which will take them through to Masters.
Maybe my perspective is biased by the institution I work in, but it's of
vital importance to me and my colleagues that new staff perceive our
unit as being helpful and continue to want to use our services as they
develop in their career. We offer a suite of qualifications from
Certificate (notionally level 3, compulsory for new staff) through PG
Cert and PG Diploma to Masters. The staff who come on these come because
they have a genuine interest in theorising as part of the development of
their teaching. They're a joy to teach and they act as ambassadors and
change agents for us back in their departments.
I do agree with David B. that observation of teaching is the important
ingredient missing from the individual RP route. New staff learn a great
deal, not just from being observed but from observing a range of other
teachers (and not just in their own subject). I would certainly build
this into all programmes for new staff.
Janet Strivens
Centre for Lifelong Learning:
Learning and Teaching Development
University of Liverpool
128 Mt Pleasant
Liverpool L69 3GF
tel: 0151 794 1167
mobile: 07939 521554
fax: 0151 794 1182
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
|
