Hi
I attended the first session launching the ILT, and was able to
discuss the criteria with a few colleagues.
We have certain concerns I think and I would be interested in hearing
from colleagues their views, while not wishing to undermine the ILT's
overall objectives or its staff.
The 'simple' route for at least two years obviously has as its aim
getting a good number of current staff into the ILT - an income
stream, a presence in institutions, and a body to consult with on the
full monty of accreditation. Highly understandable. However...
Will this undermine our efforts to get *current* staff onto in house
ITT programmes? Will the existence of a direct portfolio route after
the introductory period continue to do this, and in effect undermine
inhouse provision - making it less economical? Numbers on validated
PG programmes get funding, after all. Will this put institutions
into the position of not recognising MILT as a 'qualification' to
teach? What if a member of staff 'fails' an accredited programme but
submits a portfolio and is accepted into the ILT (not very likely,
but an awkward scenario should it occur, particularly if there is a
probationary requirement in the institution)? What does the direct
route mean for the development of different 'pathways' in
institutions, which is an attractive element, capable of bringing in
'para-academics' and creating greater sense of equality between
academic and support staff, by joint participation in cross elements
of pathways? Is it easier to 'fudge together' a direct portfolio
than one developed under the guidance of mentors, peers, and the
framework of an inhouse programme? What about equivalence?
We were also worried that the 'fast-track' route for the first two
years or more (why more? - does this encourage institutions to drag
their heels over getting progs accredited?) would find it difficult
to identify the 'reflective practitioner', and the 'scholarly'
element we all think is important in the SEDA scheme (and at Derby
what contributes to the M level credits). Those of us who are likely
to be approached as referees might find ourselves in difficult
positions between our will to develop a good number of Members in our
institutions and our judgement of the validity of the application for
membership. Not the first time referees may face awkward issues, but
it could run deep, say, if I agree to be a referee for one colleague
but not another.
And overall, will this 'easy' route mean that the ILT has to work
even harder to achieve real respectability. After all, we demand
that a researcher has engaged in at least two years full time
postgraduate professional training. An inhouse pg certificate in t&l
at 1 year PT, equivalent to a semester or less FT, seems small enough
in comparison. But is the ILT demanding even less?
Now all this may be jumping the gun, as the reality may justify all.
So the vetting procedure may be very tight, with safeguards, so there
is no sense of an 'easy' route. Maybe those who apply and thus
volunteer to pay a fee for the privilege of membership will be self-
selecting of the committed, reflective and excellent practitioners.
Maybe the fee for the direct portfolio route will be so high that
staff prefer the inhouse route, where insitutions will be free to say
that an independent portfolio assessed internally would only be
acceptable in extremis, and staff should pursue the accredited
programme instead. Will some routes, and institutions, have the
appearance of seeming a relatively easy touch?
But it is quite different from either Booth or the last document.
Will it raise the profile of teaching as we all hoped? Maybe not as
fast as we hoped, but the best way in the end?
Clearly, the current routes are but outlines, and we may be able to
influence implementation in the direction of a successful Institute,
we would all be proud to be members of, regardless of position or
experience.
We need to discuss the current proposals openly, but fairly, to make
them work, as I supect there will be no retraction this time,
whatever the pressure. Come what may, they look like the raw
materials. How do we turn them into a gold standard for teaching and
learning in HE?
Chris O'Hagan
============================================
Christopher O'Hagan
Dean of Learning Development
Centre for Educational Development and Media
University of Derby
Kedleston Road
DERBY, DE22 1GB
England
Tel: +44 (0)1332 622262 (direct)
Fax: +44 (0)1332 622772
Email: [log in to unmask]
WWW: http://www.derby.ac.uk/cedm/welcome.html
I am always seeking book proposals for SEDA Publications:
http://www.seda.demon.co.uk/pubsmenu.html
and article proposals for the webzine The Technology Source:
http://horizon.unc.edu/TS
There is a crack - a crack in everything:
That's how the light gets in. L.Cohen, 'Anthem'
============================================
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|