 |
 |
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]