I think there are a number of ways in which centres of academic practice (in the widest sense) are reviewed. Firstly there is often an internal review mechanism, but these fall under the professional service structures
(mostly) and are therefore quite differently organised in different institutions. Sometimes then an external will be involved, but certainly not always.
Then there is ample peer review in many places for outputs from centres: courses, resources, guidance materials, toolkits etc, all reviewed by peers, and quite often those are external. You’ve picked up on the
accredited courses, but there are also external examiners, periodic programme reviews and external consultants on all manner of things. I’ve certainly engaged a good number of those when I still led a centre.
Then there is regularly a point in the cycle of politics within universities where an incoming PVC or VC feels the existing outfit needs to be reviewed, and this is almost invariably done with the involvement
of an external reviewer. I’ve done a few of these. It is remarkable how much institutional leaders can gain from taking an open minded look at their centre for L&T.
Finally, some of us –perhaps matured by experience of local politics- take on the role of leading a centre but only under the condition of an external review of effectiveness after four years. That gives the institution
the chance to see whether the centre and its structure still fit, and the centre the opportunity to keep the political wrangling contained.
What we do not have is a set of common standards for centres for L&T excellence (of whatever kind), partly because they can be wildly different in size, position, remit and constitution.
Looking at the approach we’ve taken at Warwick is an example of the diversity within the sector. We’re not really a centre at all. I lead an Academy of Educators, or Fellows, who are selected through a competitive
process from across the academic and professional community. They are all educational leaders with a background of impactful achievement, be that at a junior or senior level, we do not mind. But they are exceptional and get selected because they can change
the institution for the better. They become Fellows and stay with us for three years (no buy out, not remunerated). Fellows can bid for funding for projects, join governance roles, join regular events where they get to engage with the great and good (external
and internal) and become the collective voice on learning and teaching that informs policy and strategy. There is a new, small intake every year and after three years Fellows (sadly) step down and hand the baton to the next group. In the meantime they will
have been able to gain a lot of visibility, take up opportunities and build up their career prospects and networks. The actual ‘centre’ for this Academy consists of three people: our administrator, my PA and me (and I do other things too).
Compare that to my last outfit: there were 86 (excellent) staff, covering Academic Staff Development, PG skills development, e-Learning, Teaching Quality, English language support, academic skills development,
survey management and teaching space development.
Both arrangements develop excellence in learning and teaching, and each fit(ted) their institution exceptionally well. But they couldn’t be more different. I’d find it hard to develop external review with such
different remits and arrangements in place.
Well, I hope that helps inform your thinking. Good luck with the book!
Prof Gwen van der Velden BA(Hons) MA DBA PFHEA
Academic Director and Fellow of the Warwick International Higher Education Academy | WIHEA | University of Warwick | Senate House | Coventry | CV4 7AL
From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Alan Wright
Sent: 02 February 2018 16:35
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: State of Play? The Practice of External Reviews of Centres for Teaching and Learning
A group of Educational Developers in Canada is writing a guide to external reviews of centres for teaching and learning as this practice is growing in our country.
I am writing an international 'environmental scan' chapter for the guide and have turned up some interesting developments in Australia and the USA. But my information thus far on the
'state of play' in UK universities is that there is "little appetite" for external reviews. The editors of this guide find, quite rightly, that this observation is unsubstantiated.
I often read notices seeking "external reviewers" for teacher certification programmes but I have never seen a notice of a search for an "external reviewer" for the overall appraisal
of a centre for teaching and learning. Am I missing announcements of external reviews you know about?
Please let me know of any instances of external centre reviews in the UK. I would also appreciate your views and outlook on the matter as well as any references to reports or news/institutional
articles concerning centre reviews.
Allow me to note, en passant, that we feel that the guide we are writing simply helps centres to align (to an extent) with academic department/program reviews and it is written with
a view to enhancing our practices rather than in response to unreasonable and arbitrary demands for accountability.
Vice-Provost, Teaching and Learning
